[geo] Renaming this Group - Solar Geoengineering or SRM Geoengineering

[M V Bhaskar]

Geoengineering refers to both SRM and CDR.

Since this group now focuses only on SRM it should be renamed to reflect 
the new objects.

So renaming this Group as 'Solar Geoengineering' or 'SRM Geoengineering' or 
any other suitable name would be appropriate.

-- 
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 view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/geoengineering/d1f4ca87-a60b-4e12-8d0d-7c195ed74bbd%40googlegroups.com.

[geo] Algae and Climate Change - Replacing current feed crops with algae - a solution to climate change

[M V Bhaskar]

Algae and Climate Change

*October 17, 2015*
AlgaeIndustryMagazine.com 
http://www.algaeindustrymagazine.com/algae-and-climate-change/?utm_source=feedburner_medium=email_campaign=Feed%3A+AlgaeIndustryMagazine+%28Algae+Industry+Magazine%29

"John Milewski, executive producer and managing editor of Wilson Center 
NOW, interviews Ecosystems Services and Management Program Research Scholar 
Brian Walsh, who believes that replacing current feed crops with algae 
could yield big results toward providing a solution to climate change. In 
fact, his research indicates a potential for reducing atmospheric carbon 
concentrates to preindustrial levels by the end of the century. Dr. Walsh, 
who earned his PhD in particle physics at Yale University, is expert in 
statistical analysis of large sets of data, model development and testing, 
and measurements of signal significance, statistical limits, and confidence 
intervals."

Land under cultivation is about 5 Billion Acres, of this 1 Billion is used 
for food crops and 4 Billion is used for animal feed.
Dr Wilson suggests that growing algae on part of the 4 Billion acres used 
for animal feed would be adequate to make a significant impact on climate 
change.

The Felix Model referred to by Dr Walsh is discussed on 
http://www.felixmodel.com/#

The Felix (Functional Enviro-economic Linkages Integrated neXus) model is a 
system dynamics model  of 
global social, economic, and environmental Earth systems. Critical 
interdependencies among these systems are incorporated to recreate the 
complex dynamic behavior which characterizes the Anthropocene [1].

Regards

Bhaskar
Hyderabad. India


-- 
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.

Re: [geo] CIGI : assessing scientific legitimacy: the case of marine geoengineering

[M V Bhaskar]

Stephen

And what about the sewage and fertilizer flowing into oceans. 
If the problems caused by these are to be solved, something has to be done 
to solve the problem.

Dosing Iron is one of the solutions. 

What about arresting the decline in fish in Oceans and restoring them back 
to historical highs.
If this is to be done, then fish feed has to be provided, so something has 
to be done to increase feed for the fish in the oceans. 

Again Iron is the answer, this helps grow Diatom Algae and diatoms are at 
the bottom of the marine food chain.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Friday, 18 September 2015 20:26:46 UTC+5:30, Stephen Salter wrote:
>
> Hi All
>
> While they about it, what about throwing plastic bags in the sea?
>
> Stephen
>
> Emeritus Professor of Engineering Design. School of Engineering, 
> University of Edinburgh, Mayfield Road, Edinburgh EH9 3JL, Scotland 
> s.sa...@ed.ac.uk , Tel +44 (0)131 650 5704, Cell 07795 203 
> 195, WWW.homepages.ed.ac.uk/shs, YouTube Jamie Taylor Power for Change
>
>
> On 18/09/2015 15:42, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
> Why do people think that the term 'geoengineering', a term that 
> necessitates determination of intention, is a useful term when it comes to 
> discussing governance of the marine environment? 
>
> Do the marine organisms understand our intentions? Do they care why 
> something is being done?
>
> If the concern is scale up of physically describable activities, why not 
> govern those physically describable activities?
>
> Or is it that people want to prevent the generation of knowledge they see 
> as dangerous?  Is the real goal the suppression of the generation of 
> knowledge, or the protection of the marine environment?
>
> cf. Caldeira and Ricke, Nature Climate Change 2013 (attached).
>
>
> ___
> Ken Caldeira
>
> Carnegie Institution for Science  
> Dept of Global Ecology
> 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
> +1 650 704 7212  kcal...@carnegiescience.edu 
> website:  
> http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab/  
> blog: http://kencaldeira.org  
> @KenCaldeira
>
> My assistant is Dawn Ross < dr...@carnegiescience.edu 
> >, with access to incoming emails.
> Postdoc positions: 
> 
> https://jobs.carnegiescience.edu/jobs/postdoc-opportunity-the-global-cycle-of-atmospheric-kinetic-energy/
>
>
> On Fri, Sep 18, 2015 at 7:34 AM, Andrew Lockley  > wrote:
>
>> Attached
>>
>> Key Points 
>> • There have been growing concerns within the international scientific 
>> and 
>> political communities about marine geoengineering occurring at untested 
>> scales and without appropriate oversight. In 2007, several private 
>> companies planned to introduce large quantities of iron into the ocean to 
>> stimulate the growth of phytoplankton, which would pull CO2 from the 
>> atmosphere and help mitigate climate change impacts, a process known as 
>> ocean iron fertilization (OIF). 
>> • The negative publicity that OIF garnered forced the parties of the 
>> London Convention and the London Protocol (LC-LP) to rethink governance of 
>> marine geoengineering, resulting in the Assessment Framework for Scientific 
>> Research Involving Ocean Fertilization. 
>> • However, gaps in the governance still remain: the framework has not 
>> been 
>> integrated on a national level by the International Maritime Organization 
>> (IMO), there is a void of transparency mechanisms in place and there 
>> currently exist no independent assessments of the impacts of OIF. 
>> • To remedy these issues, this brief recommends that the IMO and parties 
>> to the LC-LP develop memorandums of understanding (MoUs) to delineate 
>> framework implementation plans, adopt legally binding governance 
>> transparency mechanisms to ensure linkages between national and 
>> international governance institutions, and create independent assessment 
>> panels (IAPs).
>> -- 
>> 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com .
>> To post to this group, send email to 
>> geoengi...@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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com .
> To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@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 

[geo] Re: The Ambitious Plan to Pump Oxygen Back into the Baltic Sea

[M V Bhaskar]

Andrew 

The nutrient input and reduction target for the Baltic is given on the 
website of HELCOM.
http://helcom.fi/baltic-sea-action-plan/nutrient-reduction-scheme/targets/

The required reductions are just 89,000 tons per year of N and 14,000 tons 
per year of P.

If Diatoms are grown to consume this much N and P about 0.9 million tons of 
diatoms would be required and they can produce all the oxygen required, 
about 1.2 Million tons per year and consume about 400,000 tons of Carbon 
per year.

Cost of growing the 0.9 Million tons of Diatoms would be about Euro 100 
Million per year and value of increase in fish catch will be much more than 
this. 

So we can make a profit, oxygenate the Baltic and consume huge amounts of 
carbon.

Regards

Bhaskar


On Thursday, 21 May 2015 22:07:41 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:


 http://motherboard.vice.com/read/the-ambitious-plan-to-pump-oxygen-back-into-the-baltic-sea
  

 The Ambitious Plan to Pump Oxygen Back into the Baltic Sea 

 Written by Steph Yin, Contributor 

 May 19, 2015 // 06:00 AM EST 

 Curled up in the elbow-crook of nine countries in Northern Europe, the 
 Baltic Sea holds a small portion of the world’s water but a sizable 
 portion of its history. It saw the Roman Empire rise and fall. The 
 Vikings built a trade empire around it. Slavic pirates, German 
 settlers and Dutch merchants alternately laid claim to its shores. It 
 swallowed thousands of sunken planes and warships during both world 
 wars. 

 Today the Baltic Sea holds a less illustrious claim to fame: it 
 contains the largest man-made dead zone of oxygen-starved water in 
 the world. In the last century, the sea has experienced a ten-fold 
 increase in hypoxia, or low oxygen, primarily due to overloading of 
 fertilizers, sewage, and other nutrients. The chronic shortage of 
 oxygen lowers the Baltic’s water quality, suffocates fish, and leads 
 to large blooms of toxic bacteria. 

 For almost a decade now, Anders Stigebrandt, a 72-year-old retired 
 oceanographer, has been working on a scheme to breathe oxygen back 
 into the Baltic. He wants to use pumps to mix oxygen-rich water into 
 the sea’s hypoxic bottom depths. Now, he is one step closer to 
 realizing his vision. In March’s issue of the International Society 
 for Microbial Ecology Journal, he and a team of other investigators 
 reported that they had successfully used the pumping method to 
 oxygenate a fjord called Byfjord off the west coast of Sweden that is 
 roughly 2.5 miles long and 1 mile wide. 

 We wanted to do a pilot experiment that could tell us something about 
 oxygenating the Baltic, said Stigebrandt, who was a professor of 
 oceanography at the University of Gothenberg for nearly two decades 
 before retiring a couple years ago. “The Byfjord was the best example 
 we could come up with, because it’s very similar to the Baltic in many 
 ways.” 

 This is a way to throw money into the sea and deviate the focus from 
 solving the problem to treating symptoms. 

 However, the two bodies of water are different in at least one very 
 important regard—the Baltic is vastly larger, which is why Stigebrandt 
 estimates just getting his project off the ground would cost around $4 
 billion. The funding would have to come from countries around the 
 Baltic Sea, he said. After the initial set-up the pumps would have to 
 run continuously, powered by electricity from the grid, supplemented 
 by wind and possibly some small-scale wave energy. 

 Executing such a massive project requires scientific consensus and 
 political will—but many experts are skeptical. 

 Oxygenating a fjord is one thing, but making a difference in the 
 Baltic would require an extravagant number of pumps and power, said 
 Nancy Rabalais, executive director of the Louisiana Universities 
 Marine Consortium in the United States. She pointed out that while the 
 total volume of Stigebrandt’s study area was around 0.14 cubic 
 kilometers, the Baltic Sea is nearly 21,000 cubic kilometers, five 
 magnitudes of order larger. 

 The Swedish Byfjord from above. Image from Google Earth. 

 Others are concerned that relying on geoengineering—the deliberate, 
 large-scale manipulation of a natural system—would be a relatively 
 easy way out of a problem that humans have created. It’s a pity 
 because money is really needed in this area to do things like reduce 
 nutrients from land and control overfishing,” said Lars-Anders 
 Hansson, a lake ecologist at Lunds University in Sweden. This is a 
 way to throw money into the sea and deviate the focus from solving the 
 problem to treating symptoms.” 

 Hansson also has feasibility concerns. In the 1970s, he said, many 
 researchers experimented with pumping to oxygenate lakes, a process 
 called hypolimnetic aeration. The method proved not to work in small, 
 closed systems, said Hansson. “So it’s very surprising that someone 
 wants to take this old technology and apply it to a large, open 
 system.” 

 Even 

[geo] Re: Real Climate Change Solutions Too Cheap To Meter - Russ George

[M V Bhaskar]

The only thing that appears to have declined substantially in the 20th 
century is the biomass in Oceans.

Fish declined - 
http://www.bbc.com/future/story/20120920-are-we-running-out-of-fish
Whales and Krill declined - 
http://www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/02SMETACEKSEPARATA.pdf
Phytoplankton declined - 
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/

The decline is about 8 to 14 Billion tons of Fish, 100 million tons of 
Whales, 500 million tons of Krill, 10 Billion tons of Phytoplankton. 

All this adds upto a much higher figure than the 10 Billion tons of 
Anthropogenic Carbon emissions.
Mere restoration of the biomass in the oceans appears to be adequate to 
deal with all the carbon emissions.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Wednesday, 20 May 2015 13:03:10 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:


 http://russgeorge.net/2015/04/06/real-climate-change-solutions-too-cheap-to-meter/

 REAL CLIMATE CHANGE SOLUTIONS TOO CHEAP TO METER
 April 6, 2015 · by Russ George

 Todays incessant debate over climate change is clearly an argument over 
 solutions costing trillions and who can be made to pay.

 The business as usual battle lines are clearly drawn between climate 
 change criers and climate change deniers.

 The cost of climate change is staggering and easily can bring one to tears 
 as recent climate change narratives have stated. Tragically there is money 
 to be made in endless argument no matter which side the debaters are on. 
 Legendary America President Eisenhower warned of the emergence of self 
 serving government sponsored science growing into a insatiable monster and 
 in doing so foretold of the coming of a ‘climate industrial complex‘ that 
 would be focused as any good capitalist enterprise first and foremost on 
 its on-going funding. Today ‘climate change’ is being played like it is 
 part of health, or rather Big Pharma, where only the most expensive 
 treatments are promoted and reported on while the low cost generics or 
 traditional meds are ridiculed.

 Debate_on_tv1
 Climate change debate is the best TV commercial fodder and click bait you 
 can watch in front of your kids. (click to read more)
 Their shared worst nightmare are climate change solutions too cheap to 
 meter. Yet such ultra low-cost solutions are near to hand and are the 
 worlds greatest hope.

 Meanwhile here is what climate change advocates, criers, say is just how 
 big the financial sink-hole we are facing is.

 “The world is badly running out of time to deal with man-made climate 
 change – it is now increasingly likely that a catastrophic 2 degree 
 Centigrade (+2C) temperature rise is unavoidable [300.org]. 

 Thus leading climate scientists and biologists argue that for a safe 
 planet for all people’s and all species we must urgently return to the 
 pre-Industrial Revolution atmospheric CO2 concentration for millions of 
 years of about 300 parts per million CO2 (300 ppm CO2) from the current 
 dangerous and damaging 400 ppm CO2.

 However the cost of doing this and reversing damage from GHG pollution can 
 be estimated as a Carbon Debt of $270 trillion (about 3 times the annual 
 world GDP of $85 trillion) that is remorselessly increasing at $10 trillion 
 each year [link].”

 The response to these astronomically costly cries is clear in the response 
 of those who deny the problem and cost of solutions.

 “Debating the science used to be “all the rage,” said Scott Segal, who 
 represents energy interests at Bracewell  Giuliani. But now, he told the 
 Washington Post, “the key issue is whether proposed regulations cost too 
 much, weaken reliability or are illegal.”

 Follow the money

 In an odd reality what people most informed in the climate change debate, 
 criers and deniers both, agree on is that the issue is about money and of 
 course the power money confers or infers. It’s no surprise as the problem 
 with money dates back as far as money dates from the expulsion of money 
 changers from ancient temples to todays investigative primary rule of 
 “follow the money.”

 But what might happen if someone takes the money out of the equation. That 
 might just be the best thing imaginable or would it?

 If you are one of the legions of people today drawing a paycheck from the 
 trough of the insatiable climate change debate any low-cost solution is 
 going to take money out of your paycheck. While any idea that either 
 doesn’t work or requires lots of money to flow now that’s bread and butter 
 on your crier or denier table. There’s never been any good way to give 
 advice to those of this ilk. You might have to look for a different job. So 
 far your efforts to ‘kill the messenger’ have failed.

 Solutions  Illusions

 OK there are some low-cost solutions out there that sort of work but they 
 don’t work well enough solve much of the problem and thus threaten the flow 
 of money in the climate change game. In fact they make for some good pocket 
 change while waiting for the big trillion-dollar pay off. Sure 

[geo] Re: GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi Michael

The contradiction in your statements are obvious -
If $ 150 million have been spent over past 10 years on one project and many 
such projects are being executed, why is there a sudden increase in this 
year's Salmon run, there ought to have been a steady increase over the past 
10 years.

I am not saying that the entire increase in this year's Salmon run is due 
to the Haida Nation experiment, but the link should be studied and more 
such experiments should be conducted. 

Far too much effort is being wasted in criticism instead of moving forward 
with systematic scientific research. 

Regards

Bhaskar

On Thursday, 25 December 2014 04:14:32 UTC+5:30, Michael Hayes wrote:

 Hi Folks,

 The whole concept of the salmon population dramatically increasing due to 
 a few days of extra feed is, on the face of it, simply ridiculous. Here in 
 the Pacific Northwest there has been an ongoing multi decades effort at 
 salmon 
 recovery http://www.rco.wa.gov/%5C/salmon_recovery/efforts.shtml and 
 the last few years we have seen the northward migration of warmer waters 
 which has reach just offshore the Salish Sea 
 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Salish_Sea. This warming of the offshore 
 waters has increased the primary production in those waters and many of the 
 Fraser River and Skagit River http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Skagit_River 
 (my local river) salmon mature in the offshore waters outside the Salish 
 Sea. On the Baker River 
 https://pse.com/aboutpse/Environment/Pages/Fish.aspx alone, over $150M 
 has been spent in less than 10 years, on one salmon recovery project alone 
 and there are multiple international projects of the same caliber. Thus, 
 the claim that the OIF effort miraculously multiplied the salmon population 
 in here in the PNW is not credibleby a long shot.

 Best,

 Michael 

 On Sunday, November 16, 2014 4:37:37 PM UTC-8, Bill Stahl wrote:

  To the extent that an increased salmon catch was due to OIF, the Haida 
 experiment turns the usual CDR issue on its head. Instead of a CDR idea 
 looking for any possible economic justification to bring it over the line 
 into financial feasibility, this would be a financially feasible 
 aquaculture technique with a potential add-on subsidy from carbon pricing. 
 Has anyone compared what the Haida spent vs. what the salmon industry got 
 out of it, to calculate a rough ROI? (Allowing for a range of estimates of 
 how much was due to OIF*). I can easily imagine a bunch of fishermen in a 
 Ketchikan bar swapping stories about what a great season they had because 
 of the Haida project, then talking about  subsidizing this money-maker with 
 carbon credits. 
  
 ‘Slippery slope’ arguments are usually used to warn against GE research 
 (e.g. Hamilton’s ‘No, Let’s Not “Just Do The Research”) but there is a 
 slippery slope in carbon pricing too. The carbon prices cited by 
 environmental advocates as sufficient to change the energy system quickly 
 would be far higher than those required to get many CDR schemes into 
 action, including ones like OIF that are anathema to many of the most vocal 
 supporters of carbon pricing. And if an OIFapproach can already make money 
 unsubsidized for existing, and influential, economic interests then 
 investment will flow to it.  If you support a strong carbon price  - and 
 that’s the organizing principle of climate change advocacy across the board 
 -  you may already pulling an oar in this particular rowboat, even if 
 you hate the idea. 

 Which is OK by me. But perhaps the people who so annoy Tulip say the 
 things they do because they figured this out too. 

 Any suggestions of other fisheries that might be amenable to this 
 approach? Clearly most species do not gather at as convenient a 
 feeding-trough as a Haida Eddy, but surely there are some.

  *Of course how effective the Haida OIF was as CDR is a separate issue. 



-- 
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.

[geo] Effects of CO2 and iron availability on rbcL gene expression in Bering Sea diatoms

[M V Bhaskar]

http://news-oceanacidification-icc.org/2014/12/23/effects-of-co2-and-iron-availability-on-rbcl-gene-expression-in-bering-sea-diatoms/?utm_source=feedburnerutm_medium=emailutm_campaign=Feed%3A+wordpress%2FlRgb+%28Ocean+acidification%29

Effects of CO2 and iron availability on rbcL gene expression in Bering 
Sea diatoms

Iron (Fe) can limit phytoplankton productivity in approximately 40% of the 
global ocean, including high-nutrient, low-chlorophyll (HNLC) waters. 
However, there is little information available on the impact of CO2-induced 
seawater acidification on natural phytoplankton assemblages in HNLC 
regions. We therefore conducted an on-deck experiment manipulating CO2 and 
Fe using Fe-deficient Bering Sea waters during the summer of 2009. The 
concentrations of CO2 in the incubation bottles were set at 380 and 600 ppm 
in the non-Fe-added (control) bottles and 180, 380, 600, and 1000 ppm in 
the Fe-added bottles. The phytoplankton assemblages were primarily composed 
of diatoms followed by haptophytes in all incubation bottles as estimated 
by pigment signatures throughout the 7 day incubation period. At the end of 
incubation, the relative contributions of diatoms to chlorophyll a biomass 
decreased significantly with increased CO2 levels in the controls, whereas 
minimal changes were found in the Fe-added treatments. These results 
indicate that, under Fe-deficient conditions, the growth of diatoms was 
negatively affected by the increase in CO2 availability. To confirm this, 
we estimated the expression and phylogeny of rbcL (which encodes the large 
subunit of RubisCO) mRNA in diatoms by quantitative reverse transcription 
PCR and clone library techniques, respectively. Interestingly, regardless 
of Fe availability, the expression and diversity of rbcL cDNA decreased in 
the high CO2 treatments (600 and 1000 ppm). The present study suggests that 
the projected future increase in seawater pCO2 could reduce the RubisCO 
activity of diatoms, resulting in a decrease in primary productivity and a 
shift in the food web structure of the Bering Sea.

Endo H., Sugie K., Yoshimura T.  Suzuki K., 2014. Effects of CO2 and iron 
availability on rbcL gene expression in Bering Sea diatoms. *Biogeosciences 
Discussions* 11:18105-18143.


-- 
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.

[geo] Re: #Mustread : Should we upgrade photosynthesis and grow supercrops? New Scientist

[M V Bhaskar]

Andrew

Diatoms perhaps use C4 Photosynthesis.
A couple of papers on the subject.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11069177
Unicellular C4 photosynthesis in a marine diatom.
Reinfelder JR 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Reinfelder%20JR%5BAuthor%5Dcauthor=truecauthor_uid=11069177
1, Kraepiel AM 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Kraepiel%20AM%5BAuthor%5Dcauthor=truecauthor_uid=11069177
, Morel FM 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed?term=Morel%20FM%5BAuthor%5Dcauthor=truecauthor_uid=11069177
.
Author information http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11069177#
Abstract

Nearly 50 years ago, inorganic carbon was shown to be fixed in microalgae 
as the C3 compound phosphoglyceric acid. The enzyme responsible for C3 
carbon fixation, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate carboxylase (Rubisco), however, 
requires inorganic carbon in the form of CO2 (ref. 2), and Rubisco enzymes 
from diatoms have half-saturation constants for CO2 of 30-60 microM (ref. 
3). As a result, diatoms growing in seawater that contains about 10 microM 
CO2 may be CO2 limited. Kinetic and growth studies have shown that diatoms 
can avoid CO2 limitation, but the biochemistry of the underlying mechanisms 
remains unknown. Here we present evidence that C4 photosynthesis supports 
carbon assimilation in the marine diatom Thalassiosira weissflogii, thus 
providing a biochemical explanation for CO2-insensitive photosynthesis in 
marine diatoms. If C4 photosynthesis is common among marine diatoms, it may 
account for a significant portion of carbon fixation and export in the 
ocean, and would explain the greater enrichment of 13C in diatoms compared 
with other classes of phytoplankton. Unicellular C4 carbon assimilation may 
have predated the appearance of multicellular C4 plants.


*http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976569/*

C3 and C4 Pathways of Photosynthetic Carbon Assimilation in Marine Diatoms 
Are under Genetic, Not Environmental, Control1 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976569/#fn1,[W] 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976569/#fn2[OA] 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976569/#fn3
Karen Roberts 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Roberts%20K%5Bauth%5D, Espen 
Granum http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Granum%20E%5Bauth%5D, Richard 
C. Leegood http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Leegood%20RC%5Bauth%5D
,* and John A. Raven 
http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/?term=Raven%20JA%5Bauth%5D
ABSTRACT
Marine diatoms are responsible for up to 20% of global CO2 fixation. Their 
photosynthetic efficiency is enhanced by concentrating CO2 around Rubisco, 
diminishing photorespiration, but the mechanism is yet to be resolved. 
Diatoms have been regarded as C3 photosynthesizers, but recent metabolic 
labeling and genome sequencing data suggest that they perform C4photosynthesis. 
We studied the pathways of photosynthetic carbon assimilation in two 
diatoms by short-term metabolic 14C labeling. In *Thalassiosira weissflogii*, 
both C3 (glycerate-P and triose-P) and C4 (mainly malate) compounds were 
major initial (2–5 s) products, whereas*Thalassiosira pseudonana* produced 
mainly C3 and C6 (hexose-P) compounds. The data provide evidence of C3-C4 
intermediate 
photosynthesis in *T. weissflogii*, but exclusively C3photosynthesis in *T. 
pseudonana*. The labeling patterns were the same for cells grown at 
near-ambient (380 *μ*L L−1) and low (100 *μ*L L−1) CO2 concentrations. The 
lack of environmental modulation of carbon assimilatory pathways was 
supported in *T. pseudonana* by measurements of gene transcript and protein 
abundances of C4-metabolic enzymes (phospho*enol*pyruvate carboxylase and 
phospho*enol*pyruvate carboxykinase) and Rubisco. This study suggests that 
the photosynthetic pathways of diatoms are diverse, and may involve 
combined CO2-concentrating mechanisms. Furthermore, it emphasizes the 
requirement for metabolic and functional genetic and enzymic analyses 
before accepting the presence of C4-metabolic enzymes as evidence for C4
 photosynthesis.

So there is no need to upgrade photosynthesis or grow super crops, just 
grow more Diatoms.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Monday, 6 October 2014 14:43:49 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:

 Poster's note : I don't use the #Mustread tag lightly, but this technology 
 has enormous potential implications for biogeochemical cycling on 
 geological timescales. The rise of C4 plants has given us today's global 
 climate. It's therefore critically important that geoengineers get involved 
 in this debate. It's not inconceivable that a mistake here could end up 
 snowballing us. Whilst unlikely, comprehensive evaluation of such risks is 
 critical. 


 http://www.newscientist.com/article/mg22429892.900-should-we-upgrade-photosynthesis-and-grow-supercrops.html?full=true#.VDJboCO3PFo

 Should we upgrade photosynthesis and grow supercrops?

 06 October 2014 by Michael Le Page
 Magazine issue 2989. 

 A long-awaited breakthrough by crop 

[geo] Re: Iron fertilization could backfire -- ScienceDaily

[M V Bhaskar]

http://www.palomar.edu/oceanography/iron.htm

*John Martin's http://earthobservatory.nasa.gov/Library/Giants/Martin/* iron 
hypothesis—fertilizing the sea with iron—was first put to the test on the 
open ocean in 1993. According to Martin's iron hypothesis, seeding the 
ocean surface with iron should make microscopic marine organisms like 
diatoms multiply dramatically, which might in turn cool the planet. 

http://www.cbd.int/doc/publications/cbd-ts-45-en.pdf
A shift in the phytoplankton community from one dominated by smaller 
planktonic species to one dominated by Diatoms was observed in five out of 
the 13 iron addition experiments, 

The objective of Iron Fertilization is to get the Diatoms to grow, so 
saying that diatom consume too much iron and thus starve out other 
phytoplankton is utterly wrong.

The various iron fertilization experiments conducted till date failed to 
achieve the first goal of growing diatoms ( only 5 out of 13 achieved a 
Diatom dominant bloom ) , this is one reason why the amount of 
sequestration was low.

So what is required is to first find a way to grow Diatoms in oceans.

If we can sustain a Diatom dominant bloom for say 6 months in the Southern 
Ocean, we can judge how much carbon can be sequestered. 

Regards

Bhaskar

On Sunday, 20 July 2014 19:23:46 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612144833.htm

 A new study on the feeding habits of ocean microbes calls into question 
 the potential use of algal blooms to trap carbon dioxide and offset rising 
 global levels.

 These blooms contain iron-eating microscopic phytoplankton that absorb 
 CO2 from the air through the process of photosynthesis and provide 
 nutrients for marine life. But one type of phytoplankton, a diatom, is 
 using more iron that it needs for photosynthesis and storing the extra in 
 its silica skeletons and shells, according to an X-ray analysis of 
 phytoplankton conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National 
 Laboratory. This reduces the amount of iron left over to support the 
 carbon-eating plankton.

 Just like someone walking through a buffet line who takes the last two 
 pieces of cake, even though they know they'll only eat one, they're hogging 
 the food, said Ellery Ingall, a professor at the Georgia Institute of 
 Technology and co-lead author on this result. Everyone else in line gets 
 nothing; the person's decision affects these other people.

 Because of this iron-hogging behavior, the process of adding iron to 
 surface water -- called iron fertilization or iron seeding -- may have only 
 a short-lived environmental benefit. And, the process may actually reduce 
 over the long-term how much CO2 the ocean can trap.

 Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton, triggering algal blooms, 
 the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take 
 up even more iron to build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, 
 they sink to the ocean floor, sequestering the iron and starving off the 
 diatom's plankton peers.

 Over time, this reduction in the amount of iron in surface waters could 
 trigger the growth of microbial populations that require less iron for 
 nutrients, reducing the amount of phytoplankton blooms available to take in 
 CO2 and to feed marine life.

 While scientists have known for a long time that phytoplankton use iron to 
 fuel the process of photosynthesis, there are gaps in their understanding 
 of how this iron cycling process works. Those gaps led scientists to miss 
 how large an amount of iron was getting trapped in those sinking skeletons 
 and removed permanently from the food chain. X-ray studies at the Advanced 
 Photon Source at Argonne gave scientists a way to measure the ratio of iron 
 and silica in the plankton and surface water.

 Being able to use X-rays and see the element content of individual 
 microscopic phytoplankton has completely altered our perspective on how 
 these organisms use iron and how that could affect CO2 levels, Ingall said.

 In the paper Role of biogenic silica in the removal of iron from the 
 Antarctic seas published June 10 in the journal Nature Communications, 
 scientists conservatively estimate that 2.5 milligrams of iron annually is 
 removed from every square meter of surface water in the Ross Sea and 
 sequestered in silica skeletons on the ocean floor. This is roughly 
 equivalent to the total amount of iron deposited annually into the Ross Sea 
 surface through snow melt, dust and upwelling of seawater.

 The same process may be occurring in the Southern Ocean and having a 
 greater impact there, because this region dictates the nutrient mix for the 
 rest of the world's oceans through migratory current patterns.

 More study is needed to know just how much iron is used to make the silica 
 skeletons and how much gets trapped on the ocean floor, the researchers 
 said.

 This gap in our knowledge, combined with renewed 

Re: [geo] Iron fertilization could backfire -- ScienceDaily

[M V Bhaskar]

This is one year old and I think already discussed.

The fundamental objective of Iron Fertilization is to grow Diatom Algae, 
because they are the phytoplankton that will sequester carbon. If other 
phytoplankton consume the iron, the carbon is likely to be remineralised 
rapidly. 

It is precisely because the Diatoms take Carbon, Silica and Iron to the 
ocean bed that repeated fertilization is required. 

So this paper is fundamentally defective and misses the basic reason for 
Iron Fertilization.

50% of ocean photosynthesis is due to Diatoms, so broadly 50% of the Iron 
is consumed by them.
So when we fertilizer oceans with Iron, we want 50% or even more to be 
consumed by Diatoms.

The fact that Whales help in bringing back to the surface the iron that 
falls to ocean bed was also posted on this group a few days ago. The report 
that discussed the Iron content unfortunately did not mention the carbon 
content or C : Fe ratio of the Whale feces. The C : Fe ratio of Whale feces 
would be lower than the C : Fe ratio of consumption during photosynthesis ( 
about 106,000  : 1 ), indicating that the carbon is captured and Iron is 
recycled by whales. So the faster the iron cycle moves the more will be the 
carbon captured. 

If the whales exhaled most of the carbon consumed as CO2 or excreted it via 
feces, the ratio of O2 : C in the atmosphere and the weight of the Whales 
would not be so high.

Regards

Bhaskar


On Sunday, 20 July 2014 22:39:15 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:

 I see this as more of a silica story than a CO2 story. If you do OIF in 
 areas high in nutrients but depleted both in Fe and Si (e.g., equatorial 
 upwelling) you presumably still get phytoplankton blooms, just not diatoms. 
 Then the issue is does this biomass carbon sink or just recycle in the 
 surface ocean. The effectiveness of this vertical C pump will depend on the 
 size, shape, and ballast of the phytos doing the C fixing and sinking, as 
 well as the grazing, respiration, pooping, and sinking efficiency of higher 
 consumers. 
 Past performance is not a guarantee of future behavior, results may vary, 
 void where prohibited, etc. For these reasons and others I'm not a big fan 
 (yet) of asking open-ocean marine biology to help fix our C problem, there 
 are just too many pulleys and levers.
 Greg

   --
  *From:* Mike MacCracken mmac...@comcast.net javascript:
 *To:* Andrew Lockley andrew@gmail.com javascript:; Geoengineering 
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
 *Sent:* Sunday, July 20, 2014 7:07 AM
 *Subject:* Re: [geo] Iron fertilization could backfire -- ScienceDaily
  
 What an interesting possible component of a feedback process—if the 
 climate gets cold and more dust (iron) blows onto the oceans, the diatoms 
 take up the iron, so less CO2 is taken up and that would allow for more 
 warming. And vice-versa, if the climate gets warm with lots of vegetation, 
 dust (iron) to the ocean goes down, starving the diatoms of iron and the 
 plankton that take up CO2 with less need for iron dominate, pulling CO2 
 concentration down. Is this a possible Gaian negative (stabilizing) 
 feedback process? Is this the real process and DMS cycle just a symbiotic 
 process along with it—or vice-versa?

 Mike MacCracken


 On 7/20/14 9:53 AM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:

 http://www.sciencedaily.com/releases/2013/06/130612144833.htm

 A new study on the feeding habits of ocean microbes calls into question 
 the potential use of algal blooms to trap carbon dioxide and offset rising 
 global levels.

 These blooms contain iron-eating microscopic phytoplankton that absorb 
 CO2 from the air through the process of photosynthesis and provide 
 nutrients for marine life. But one type of phytoplankton, a diatom, is 
 using more iron that it needs for photosynthesis and storing the extra in 
 its silica skeletons and shells, according to an X-ray analysis of 
 phytoplankton conducted at the U.S. Department of Energy's Argonne National 
 Laboratory. This reduces the amount of iron left over to support the 
 carbon-eating plankton.

 Just like someone walking through a buffet line who takes the last two 
 pieces of cake, even though they know they'll only eat one, they're hogging 
 the food, said Ellery Ingall, a professor at the Georgia Institute of 
 Technology and co-lead author on this result. Everyone else in line gets 
 nothing; the person's decision affects these other people.

 Because of this iron-hogging behavior, the process of adding iron to 
 surface water -- called iron fertilization or iron seeding -- may have only 
 a short-lived environmental benefit. And, the process may actually reduce 
 over the long-term how much CO2 the ocean can trap.

 Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton, triggering algal blooms, 
 the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take 
 up even more iron to build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, 
 they 

[geo] Re: With some studies published, a fresh assessment of the Haida iron/salmon project

[M V Bhaskar]

Thank you Andrew Revkin

A few comments on your report -

Most of the data collected during the iron-seeding effort in 2012 – some 
gathered with instruments loaned by Canadian and United States ocean 
agencies – are not yet public.

The data was placed in public domain a couple of days ago.

..small area and short lifetime of the bloom meant its didn’t come close 
to comparing to the carbon absorption from a 2008 eruption and other 
natural sources of iron. 

Considering the uproar 120 tons caused, who would do a larger experiment.

..meaning lots more research needs to be done...

I agree.

The problem is that no new basic research of this sort has been initiated 
in recent years.

I hope regular annual fertilization experiments are started.

George insists the project was “a phenomenal success 
http://russgeorge.net/2014/06/23/worlds-first-commercial-scale-ocean-pasture-restoration/,”
 
pointing to big recent salmon hauls along the coast.

The 2014 salmon run at proves that the 2012 fertilization did not do any 
harm. 
Whether it was a success or not will be known when the data now made public 
is analysed.

Researchers say funding agencies have been rendered gun-shy by the 
continuing battle between George and his main critic, the technology 
watchdog organization ETC Group 
http://www.etcgroup.org/content/informational-backgrounder-2012-haida-gwaii-iron-dump,
 
which long predates the salmon project.

Reminds me of the days when the high seas were ruled by pirates and private 
armies. 

It will take some time to understand who are the pirates and who are the 
private army in the current situation.

I wonder when we will have rule of law on the high seas for Fertilization. 

We need a proper permit and supervision process to be implemented at the 
earliest, so that regular and large scale fertilization experiments can be 
conducted.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Friday, 18 July 2014 17:43:38 UTC+5:30, Andrew Revkin wrote:

 L 18 7:55 AMJul 18 7:55 am Comment 
 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/a-fresh-look-at-iron-plankton-carbon-salmon-and-ocean-engineering/#commentsContainer
 A Fresh Look at Iron, Plankton, Carbon, Salmon and Ocean Engineering 
 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/2014/07/18/a-fresh-look-at-iron-plankton-carbon-salmon-and-ocean-engineering/?module=BlogPost-Titleversion=Blog%20MaincontentCollection=technologyaction=Clickpgtype=Blogsregion=Body
  
 By ANDREW C. REVKIN 
 http://dotearth.blogs.nytimes.com/author/andrew-c-revkin/Video of the 
 2012 Haida iron fertilization effort

 Two years ago this month, an edge-pushing environmental entrepreneur 
 http://www.loe.org/series/series.html?seriesID=27 and a company formed 
 by a Native Canadian village set off a wave of international protest by 
 dispersing 
 a pink slurry of 100 tons of iron-rich dust 
 http://www.nytimes.com/2012/10/19/science/earth/iron-dumping-experiment-in-pacific-alarms-marine-experts.html
  over 
 one of the 60-mile-wide ocean eddies 
 http://www.researchgate.net/publication/252383340_Iron_transport_by_mesoscale_Haida_eddies_in_the_Gulf_of_Alaska/file/3deec5297b996a55fa.pdf
  that 
 routinely drift across the salmon feeding grounds of the Gulf of Alaska.

 Their goal, in the face of steep declines in Pacific salmon catches 
 http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/sockeye-salmon-adult-populations-in-widespread-decline-1.1136426,
  
 was to trigger a plankton population explosion with the infusion of iron, a 
 vital nutrient that’s lacking in those waters. Volcanic eruptions 
 http://news.sciencemag.org/2010/10/how-volcanoes-feed-plankton had been 
 shown to do the same thing. Why not humans?

 The plankton bloom, in theory, would nourish millions of juvenile fish 
 that circulate in the Gulf before returning to the coast to spawn.

 Along with a boosted catch, a second hoped-for payoff was the sale of 
 carbon credits on international markets aimed at offsetting greenhouse gas 
 pollution by financing projects that absorb heat-trapping carbon dioxide — 
 typically by planting trees but in this case through spurring plankton 
 growth. More than $2 million was invested in the project through the tribal 
 company, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation 
 http://www.haidasalmonrestoration.com/index.php/about-us/our-story.

 The protests 
 http://www.theguardian.com/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering
  mainly 
 came from groups and scientists critical of geo-engineering, large-scale 
 efforts to harness or control the shared environment to serve human needs — 
 particularly if the efforts were private. They asserted the project 
 violated international ocean-dumping rules and a moratorium on ocean 
 fertilization.

 Russ George, the iron-dust entrepreneur (who is now in a legal fight with 
 some of his former partners 
 http://newenergytimes.com/v2/sr/companies/RussGeorge/2013/20140224HSRC-vs-Russ-George-counterclaim.pdf),
  
 has defended the effort as stewardship, not pollution.

 Don’t count 

Re: [geo] Can tiny plankton help reverse climate change? - David Biello - Aeon

[M V Bhaskar]

A related article -
http://www.npr.org/blogs/krulwich/2014/04/03/298778615/the-power-of-poop-a-whale-story

We know how much whales eat today. We know that a hundred years ago, there 
were lots more whales in the southern oceans. We can guess what the whale 
population was in 1910. If we multiply the number of whales back then times 
the size of their meals, we can imagine how much krill had to be in the 
ocean. It comes out to 1.5 billion tons of krill. 


Nicols' team analyzed 27 fecal samples from four species of baleen whales, 
reported 
New Scientist 
http://www.underwatertimes.com/news.php?article_id=52937108061. He found 
that on average whale faeces had 10 million times as much iron as Antarctic 
seawater. 
...
And guess what? When Antarctica's great whales were nearly destroyed in 
the 1960s, the krill population, instead of expanding, collapsed, by some 
80 percent.
...

Smetacek got it right. Whales do, in fact, garden the ocean, fertilizing 
the seas to grow their own food. 

Whales recirculate the iron. Even the bits that slip down to the dark 
bottom get pulled back up by whales. Sperm whales dive to terrifying 
depths, 3,000 feet below, to hunt iron-rich prey like giant squid. Pressed 
by the weight of the ocean, their digestion stops; they don't excrete. They 
consume the iron below, hold it in, climb back to the surface, and that's 
where they poop. Every sperm whale,it is said 
http://www.npr.org/books/titles/249234104/the-once-and-future-world-nature-as-it-was-as-it-is-as-it-could-be,
 
draws 50 tons of iron to the surface every year.

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/phytoplankton-population/
Researchers at Canada's Dalhousie University say the global population of 
phytoplankton has fallen about 40 percent since 1950. 

A Whale of a decision -
http://www.icj-cij.org/docket/files/148/18160.pdf

International Court of Justice held that Japan's whaling was illegal and 
asked it to stop.

So we can expect number of whales to increase and fertilize oceans with 
Iron and restore the Diatom and Krill population.

Dr Smetacek's paper 
www.fbbva.es/TLFU/dat/02SMETACEKSEPARATA.pdf
Diatom - Krill - Whales is the food chain of giants

Whales got it right, you have to fertilize the oceans with Iron to grow 
more Diatoms and Krill.

I wonder when people will understand this.

I have posted about the decline in number of whales and Phytoplankton on 
this discussion group earlier too.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Wednesday, 2 July 2014 01:06:44 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:

  From the article: At the very moment it revealed its promise, the white 
 whale of iron fertilisation seems to have slipped under the waves anew. 

  As I mentioned in my June 10 post,  how policy drowned OIF research is 
 cogently detailed here: 
 http://digitalcommons.law.scu.edu/lawreview/vol54/iss1/5/

  I'm not a big fan of OIF, but do think its hypotheses deserve to be 
 tested, as do other forms of ocean-based Earth management methods (e.g. 
 attached). After all, do we seriously think we can solve the global CO2 
 problem by ignoring 70% of the Earth's surface?  However, actions by the 
 Ocean Policy Police (e.g. London Protocol) have made scientific 
 exploration of these ideas a whole lot harder by requiring international 
 approval of such research. If the COP process is any indication, both 
 researchers and funding agencies will be unwilling to risk precious time 
 and effort on seeking approval, a process that may have no end, like 
 climate negotiations. 

  It would seem that under the rather grave CO2 circumstances we now face 
 that we need to rapidly seek and carefully test all possible solutions. But 
 instead of finding ways to chill the climate, policy instead has found ways 
 to chill research on this topic. Needless to say, that could prove to be a 
 very large and long-lived mistake for the planet's inhabitants. Let's 
 figure out a way of carefully and expeditiously exploring what our options 
 are, if any, and not, out of unfounded fear, blindly assume that the 
 negatives of such approaches will alway be greater than the benefits.

  Greg
  
  --
 *From:* geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: [
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:] on behalf of Andrew Lockley [
 andrew@gmail.com javascript:]
 *Sent:* Tuesday, July 01, 2014 10:25 AM
 *To:* geoengineering
 *Subject:* [geo] Can tiny plankton help reverse climate change? - David 
 Biello - Aeon

   
 http://aeon.co/magazine/nature-and-cosmos/can-tiny-plankton-help-reverse-climate-change/

 Extract 

 But Smetacek’s research cruise already demonstrated that iron 
 fertilisation works, and the science behind it has been vetted and 
 published in the journal Nature, as recently as 2012. Despite this 
 progress, there have been no scientific research cruises since 2009, and 
 there are none planned for the future. At the very moment it revealed its 
 promise, the white whale of iron fertilisation seems to have slipped 

[geo] Re: Ocean fertilization - a scientific summary for Policy Makers

[M V Bhaskar]

Andrew

Thank you.
Quite a comprehensive report.
Unfortunately quite a few important points are missing in the Scientific 
summary.

The objective of Ocean Fertilization is to grow Diatom Algae, not just any 
Phytoplankton, because Diatoms sink and other plankton float on death.

The report is about Ocean Fertilization but it focuses only on Iron and not 
on the other micro nutrients.

The basic numbers are not mentioned -

Anthropogenic Carbon emissions are about 10 Billion tons of Carbon per year.
Total Photosynthesis is about 105 Billion tons of Carbon consumed per year.
Diatom production is about 23.5 Billion tons of Carbon consumed per year.
Agriculture is about 8 Billion tons of Carbon consumed per year.

Pg 11
If fertilization takes place over waters that are already low in oxygen 
(e.g. in the tropics ), the N2O yield could be large, with an estimated 
40-70% offset of the benefits of CO2 reduction after 100 years.

Cyanobacteria causes reduction in O2 level and Diatoms increase O2 level, 
therefore if fertilization causes growth of Diatoms the low oxygen problem 
and consequent N2O ( and Methane ) emission problem will be solved.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Saturday, 21 June 2014 00:25:32 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:

 Attached


-- 
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.

Re: [geo] Adding Iron to the oceans

[M V Bhaskar]

Andrew

You calculation is way of the mark.

Iron does not cause growth of Fish directly, it only causes growth of 
phytoplankton. 

These are consumed by zooplankton and small fish and these by bigger fish.

The Phytoplankton to Fish ratio for the large fish that people prefer to 
eat is about 100 : 1.

So the Iron required may be at least 100,000 tons.

Actually it would be more since all the fish that grow in the oceans cannot 
be caught.

This should be dosed in the area where the fish is caught, since the 
nutrients are being removed from that area and the phytoplankton would be 
consumed by the fish in that area.

We are already fertilizing the oceans with N P K.

All the sewage we are releasing contains N and P.
Average per person is 5 g of N and 0.5 g of P per day.
This is about 12 million tons per year of N and 1.2 million tons of P.

About 100 million tons of Urea and 30 million tons of Phosphate fertilizer 
is used by farmers, a lot of this runs off into rivers and finally into the 
ocean.

Sewage and Fertilizer is causing eutrophication and dead zones in coastal 
waters and is resulting in decline in fisheries.

It is not just oceans that are iron deficient, even people suffer from it. 

http://www.who.int/water_sanitation_health/diseases/anemia/en/
Scope of the problem

Nine out of ten anaemia sufferers live in developing countries, about 2 
billion people suffer from anaemia and an even larger number of people 
present iron deficiency (WHO, 2000). Anaemia may contribute to up to 20% of 
maternal deaths.
About 2 Billion people are anemic, i.e., suffer from acute iron deficiency.

Human feces and urine does not contain much Iron.
That is why there is an imbalance in water - our urine contains N and P but 
not Iron.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anemia
The body can absorb up to 6 mg iron daily from the gastrointestinal tract. 

For 7 Billion people that is about 42 tons per day, 15,330 tons per year.
For the 2 Billion suffering from anemia it is about 4,380 tons per year.

Total Iron Ore mined is about 2,800 million tons.
Total Iron on Earth is about 20,000,000,000,000 billion tons ( 20 x 10 ^ 24 
kg )

Of course, since we are not able to cure the 2 billion people of anemia, 
expecting to solve the iron deficiency problem in oceans is perhaps 
expecting too much.

Keith Henson

Fertilizing the oceans to restore fisheries is NOT prohibited, that is why 
the Haida Salmon Restoration Project is perfectly legal. They are on the 
right path, I hope more people do similar projects.

Deep sea fishing fleets go out with empty holds and return with the holds 
full of fish.
They can easily carry Iron for fertilization and empty these in the fishing 
areas, before they start to fish.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Sunday, 22 June 2014 14:58:31 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:

 Approx 100MT annual catch 
 Approx 1 part in 10 is iron 
 Therefore need to replace 1000t iron pa into ocean ecosystems. But iron 
 isn't a limiting nutrient everywhere, so perhaps far less. 

 Should boats be tipping NPK fertiliser over the side, too? Far larger 
 volumes are required. 

 Marine reserves are likely a better way to protect ecosystems. 

 A
 On 22 Jun 2014 10:18, Keith Henson hkeith...@gmail.com javascript: 
 wrote:

 It's a shame this business got mixed up with geoengineering because it
 is something that should be done on it's own merits.

 Humans fish the seas.  As a result they remove vast amounts of
 elements from the materials circulating in the ocean biosphere.  We
 are going to fish, and remove elements, particularly iron, from the
 sea. We damn well should put it back.

 When a ship comes in with a load of fish and an estimated amount of
 iron in the fish, the next trip out they should be required to take an
 equivalent amount of iron out with them.  Or buy credits from someone
 who does this as a business.

 It's not like it would be a significant cost burden on fishermen.  And
 if it has positive effects on the catch, they should be overjoyed to
 do it.

 Any minor effects it has on CO2 is just a fortunate happenstance.

 Keith Henson

 --
 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 geoengineerin...@googlegroups.com javascript:.
 To post to this group, send email to geoengi...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:.
 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.

[geo] Haida Nation Salmon Restoration project - Webinar on June 19th - 11 am PDT

[M V Bhaskar]

This may be a little late, there is a webinar today, June 19th, at 11 am 
PDT regarding the Haida Nation Salmon Restoration project

https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/954116967217251074

This was posted on LinkedIn 

https://www.linkedin.com/groupItem?view=gid=1809551type=memberitem=5884430005940805634commentID=5885322133080391680report%2Esuccess=8ULbKyXO6NDvmoK7o030UNOYGZKrvdhBhypZ_w8EpQrrQI-BBjkmxwkEOwBjLE28YyDIxcyEO7_TA_giuRN#commentID_5885322133080391680

As you may know, the Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation (HSRC) conducted 
a large scale Ocean Iron Fertilization (OIF) experiment in the North 
Pacific in 2012. 

100 tonnes of iron compound were deposited in the migration routes of pink 
and sockeye salmon east of Haida Gwaii over a period of 30 days. The 
project resulted in a 35,000 km2 plankton bloom that lasted for 8 months. 

In 2013, an all time record of pink salmon return was recorded (86% 
increase compared to the 10-year average). For 2014, the Department for 
Fisheries  Oceans Canada expects an all time record in sockeye salmon due 
to changed conditions in the ocean.

The HSRC scientific team collected a massive amount of oceanographic data 
using autonomous underwater vehicles (Slocum Gliders), Argon Drifter, 
Multi-Spectral Sonar, Surface Seawater samples, Phytoplankton Tows and 
other methods.

A full list of the HSRC open data set is attached.

The HSRC scientific team tried to answer the following questions:
1. Can OIF restore ocean life and fishery stock?
2. Can CO2 be sequestered for a long period through OIF?
3. Does OIF have harmful effects on the environment?

The HSRC data-set contains answers to these important questions. 

However, HSRC does not have the budget and resources to further process and 
investigate this unique data-set.

HSRC recently approached Oceanea to find out if there are people in the 
scientific community that are interested to review and process the data-set.

HSRC is willing to provide the data-set under an Open Data license free of 
charge to every scientific party that is interested.

To further inform you about the background of the project, the data set and 
possible collaboration, Oceanea will organize a Webinar on Thu, Jun 19, 
2014 11:00 AM PDT.

If you are interested to learn more, please sign-up here:
https://attendee.gotowebinar.com/register/954116967217251074 
https://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=https%3A%2F%2Fattendee%2Egotowebinar%2Ecom%2Fregister%2F954116967217251074urlhash=j3QK_t=tracking_anet

You may also contact me directly with all your questions.

Peter Gross
Chief Science Officer
Oceanea Environmental Solutions
207 - 1425 Marine Drive
West Vancouver, V7T 1B9
Canada

http://www.oceanea.org 
https://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eoceanea%2Eorgurlhash=2Jkn_t=tracking_anet
 

http://twitter.com/oceaneaorg 
https://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Ftwitter%2Ecom%2Foceaneaorgurlhash=mJ1x_t=tracking_anet


Regards

Bhaskar

-- 
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.

[geo] Iron Helps Prevent Formation Of Coastal Dead Zones

[M V Bhaskar]

Iron Helps Prevent Formation Of Coastal Dead Zones
http://www.redorbit.com/news/science/1113149570/dead-zone-cutoff-switch-iron-051914/#sii4pY3FVM5FuvQ2.99

The abstract is available at -
http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html
The impact of ocean deoxygenation on iron release from continental margin 
sediments

   - Florian 
Scholzhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#auth-1
   , 
   - James 
McManushttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#auth-2
   , 
   - Alan C. 
Mixhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#auth-3
   , 
   - Christian 
Hensenhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#auth-4
 
   -  Ralph R. 
Schneiderhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#auth-5


   - 
Affiliationshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#affil-auth
   - 
Contributionshttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#contrib-auth
   - Corresponding 
authorhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#corres-auth
   - 
   - Nature Geoscience (2014) doi:10.1038/ngeo2162



In the oceans’ high-nitrate–low-chlorophyll regions, such as the 
Peru/Humboldt Current system and the adjacent eastern equatorial 
Pacific1http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#ref1,
 
primary productivity is limited by the micronutrient iron. Within the 
Peruvian upwelling area, bioavailable iron is released from the reducing 
continental margin 
sediments2http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#ref2.
 
The magnitude of this seafloor source could change with fluctuations in the 
extension or intensity of the oxygen minimum 
zones3http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#ref3
, 4http://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/vaop/ncurrent/full/ngeo2162.html#ref4. 
Here we show that measurements of molybdenum, uranium and iron 
concentrations can be used as a proxy for sedimentary iron release, and use 
this proxy to assess iron release from the sea floor beneath the Peru 
upwelling system during the past 140,000 years. We observe a coupling 
between levels of denitrification, as indicated by nitrogen isotopes, trace 
metal proxies for oxygenation, and sedimentary iron concentrations. 
Specifically, periods with poor upper ocean oxygenation are characterized 
by more efficient iron retention in the sediment and a diminished iron 
supply to the water column. We attribute efficient iron retention under 
more reducing conditions to widespread sulphidic conditions in the surface 
sediment and concomitant precipitation of iron sulphides. We argue that 
iron release from continental margin sediments is most effective in a 
narrow redox window where neither oxygen nor sulphide is present. We 
therefore suggest that future deoxygenation in the Peru upwelling area 
would be unlikely to result in increased iron availability, whereas in 
weaker oxygen minimum zones partial deoxygenation may enhance the iron 
supply.

Regards

Bhaskar

-- 
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.

[geo] Re: Nature's OIF

[M V Bhaskar]

Natural Diatom biomass production is estimated at 23 Billion tons of Carbon 
per year.

If C : Fe ratio is 106 : 0.001 then the total natural Iron consumption by 
Diatoms alone is about 1 million tons.

So if the Iron availability off Greenland alone is upto 2.5 million tons, 
it means that most of the Iron naturally deposited in oceans is not 
consumed, yet it does not produce any negative effect.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Thursday, 22 May 2014 22:07:26 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:

  Move over Russ George. 
 the team estimated that the flux of bioavailable iron into the ocean 
 from glaciers currently is between 400,000 and 2.5 million metric tons 
 annually from Greenland and up to 100,000 metric tons from Antarctica.
  Governance that.
 Greg
  
  RESEARCH: Glacial melt pouring iron into the ocean -- study 

 Christa Marshall, EE reporter
 Published: Thursday, May 22, 2014

 Call it natural geoengineering.

 Scientists report in a new study this week that glacial melt may be 
 funneling significant amounts of reactive iron into the ocean, where it may 
 counter some of the negative effects of climate change by boosting algal 
 blooms that capture carbon. The paper, published in *Nature 
 Communications*, adds to a body of research suggesting that melting ice 
 at both poles may have widespread consequences beyond rising sea levels.

 The theory goes that the more iron you add, the more productive these 
 plankton are, and thus the more CO2 is taken out of the atmosphere in 
 photosynthesis, said Jon Hawkings, a doctoral student at the University of 
 Bristol and lead author of the 
 studyhttp://www.nature.com/ncomms/2014/140521/ncomms4929/full/ncomms4929.html.
  
 Plankton 'fix' CO2 much like trees.

 The work could help improve climate models of the future and fill in data 
 holes about major climate transitions and ice ages in the past, he said. 
 The effects on Antarctica in particular will need additional examination, 
 he said, as iron currently is limited in the Southern Ocean.

 Hawkings and a research team from four United Kingdom-based universities 
 tested meltwater collected from the Leverett glacier in Greenland during 
 summer 2012 and detected large amounts of iron nanoparticles known as 
 ferrihydrite. Ferrihydrite is considered to be bioavailable iron because 
 it is easily used by plankton in lab experiments, Hawkings said.

 Through the detected iron mineral levels in their samples, the team 
 estimated that the flux of bioavailable iron into the ocean from glaciers 
 currently is between 400,000 and 2.5 million metric tons annually from 
 Greenland and up to 100,000 metric tons from Antarctica.

 That means that polar regions may rival wind-blown dust as a source of 
 ocean iron. The contribution from Greenland alone could range from 8 to 50 
 percent of the global ocean flux of bioavailable iron, Hawkings said.
  The iron ore counter-effect 

 A decade ago, a common hypothesis was that rivers and dust supplied the 
 ocean with most of its iron. Since then, scientists have reported in 
 several papers that icebergs and deep-sea hydrothermal vents also may be 
 significant contributors.

 A study last year found that a Greenland glacier was releasing iron, but 
 it did not assess as large an area and for as long of a period of time as 
 his study, Hawkings said. The studied area of the Leverett glacier, for 
 instance, is more than 600 kilometers squared, while earlier work assessed 
 a glacier about 5 kilometers squared, he said.

 Our study is the first to date to follow a whole melt season and the 
 first to have looked at a large glacial catchment, he said.

 Matt Charette, a senior scientist at the Woods Hole Oceanographic 
 Institution and co-author of an 
 earlierpaperhttp://www.nature.com/ngeo/journal/v6/n4/full/ngeo1746.html on 
 Greenland-supplied iron, said although the new study overlaps somewhat with 
 his prior work, it provides new details.

 A case could be made that a larger system like the one they studied is 
 more appropriate for scaling up to the entire ice sheet, he said.

 Kenneth Coale, a scientist at Moss Landing Marine Laboratories, said the 
 paper was nicely done and added to understanding of how iron may provide 
 a counter-effect to climate change.

 The Greenland iron originates from stored subglacial meltwater that gets 
 flushed out by surface waters carried through tunnels and cracks in ice 
 during the melt season, Hawkings said. It's not fully understood how far 
 the iron travels once in the ocean, but it likely stays near both poles. 
 Evidence exists for transport a few 100 kilometers out to sea, but only 
 limited amounts will reach the open ocean, he said.

 It's also not fully understood how the iron will interact with polar 
 ecosystems. Scientists have long known that iron-fueled algae can eat up 
 carbon, leading to speculation that iron fertilization might be a 
 geoengineering option to cool the planet. It also holds the possibility of 
 

Re: Whales and harvesting oil Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers

[M V Bhaskar]

The first benefit of Iron Fertilization would be restoration of Whales, 
crustaceans and finfish.
Unfortunately people are ignoring this benefit due to narrow interpretation 
of the theory of Iron Fertilization.

The increase in CO2 emissions benefited people for about 200 years and it 
is only now that we are witnessing the problems. 

The benefit of Iron Fertilization too would be similar the benefit would 
first be in restoration of fish in the oceans and only after this would 
there be any large sequestration of carbon. But the fact that is 
ecologically and economically beneficial is being ignored. 

Whale and finfish population of oceans has declined by 75% to 90%, 
restoration requires some type of Ocean Fertilization.

regards

Bhaskar


On Sunday, 20 October 2013 23:42:02 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:

 Dear Emily,
 Just to clarify:  
 1) Whales themselves are net sources of CO2 to the atmosphere - they 
 consume and respire many times their weight in marine carbon that they then 
 ventilate to air. HOWEVER, it has been suggested that their nutrient-rich 
 poop (which floats) could fuel further marine photosynthesis and hence 
 effect net air CO2 drawdown relative to what would happen without whales. 
  I'm a little skeptical, but let's do more research to find out.

 2) Baleen whales solve several major problems facing the algae biofuels 
 industry - they efficiently harvest algae (OK invertebrates that eat algae) 
 and convert this on the fly to massive stores of hydrocarbons in a manner 
 that Sapphire Energy, the DOD, etc can only dream about.  Whales are the 
 Chevrons and ExxonMobils of the ocean, and were exploited as such into the 
 last century.

 3) Obviously, we are not going back to these bad old days, but it is food 
 for thought as to how we might be able to build on this very efficient 
 model of marine biofuel production to help solve our current energy and CO2 
 problem. Ranching whales might seem shocking, but then look what we do to 
 another mammals.  I suggest free-range ranching and humane liposuction to 
 harvest the oil to avoid killing the animals, but I'm just thinking out 
 loud here. Who knows, maybe some engineer will invent a mechanical whale 
 and solve the whole animal exploitation dilemma (still, at the expense of 
 those poor, defenseless, and beautiful algae).

 In any case, I think our days of hands-off management of a once pristine 
 ocean needs to be replaced by a more hands-on, pro-active style, the 
 details of which are in need some serious debate and research:
 http://www.nature.com/nclimate/journal/v2/n10/full/nclimate1555.html

 I'm just saying that we cannot ignore 70% of the planet, either as a 
 victim of our activities, or a possible solver of our current predicament. 
  Mother Nature won't.

 Greg 

   --
  *From:* em...@lewis-brown.net javascript: 
 em...@lewis-brown.netjavascript:
 
 *To:* Emily Lewis-Brown em...@lewis-brown.net javascript:; 
 gh...@sbcglobal.net javascript:; Michael Hayes 
 vogle...@gmail.comjavascript:; 
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
 geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript: 

 *Sent:* Saturday, October 19, 2013 4:58 AM
 *Subject:* Whales and harvesting oil Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's 
 unlikely CDRers
  
 Ps i sorry, i should have added, any wording around 'harvesting' whales or 
 using the oil, would i expect be met with ngo outcry.
 The whales are a good source of carbon stotage when they are live and 
 swimming around the ocean. Their long migration habits are a critical 
 component of their feeding and carbon cycling eco-functions also.
 Thanks
 Emily
 Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
 --
 *From: * em...@lewis-brown.net javascript: 
 *Sender: * geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
 *Date: *Sat, 19 Oct 2013 11:52:08 +
 *To: *gh...@sbcglobal.net javascript:; Michael Hayes
 vogle...@gmail.com javascript:; geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *ReplyTo: * em...@lewis-brown.net javascript: 
 *Subject: *Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers

 Hi,
 Whales are very slow growing and reproducing animals and would not be a 
 quick store of co2.
 While the ngo community would welcome support in protecting wild whales 
 and helping populations re-grow, i anticipate huge resistance to the word 
 'ranching' as it suggests captivity.
 Please consider wording which supports exisiting whale cionservation 
 methods.
 Thanks
 Emily.
 Sent from my BlackBerry® smartphone on O2
 --
 *From: * Greg Rau gh...@sbcglobal.net javascript: 
 *Sender: * geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript: 
 *Date: *Fri, 18 Oct 2013 13:05:01 -0700 (PDT)
 *To: *Michael Hayesvogle...@gmail.com javascript:; 
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com 
 javascript:geoengi...@googlegroups.comjavascript:
 
 *ReplyTo: * gh...@sbcglobal.net javascript: 
 *Subject: *Re: [geo] Earthworms: Nature's unlikely CDRers

 OK, thanks 

[geo] Opening the gateways for diatoms primes Earth for Antarctic glaciation

[M V Bhaskar]

http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0012821X13002185
Opening the gateways for diatoms primes Earth for Antarctic glaciation

Katherine E.Egan a,n, RosalindE.M.Rickaby a, KatharineR.Hendry b, 
AlexN.Halliday a
a Department ofEarthSciences,UniversityofOxfordParksRoad,OxfordOX13PR,UK
b School 
ofEarthandOceanSciences,CardiffUniversity,MainBuilding,ParkPlace,CardiffCF103AT,UK

a b s t r a c t

The abrupt onset of Antarctic glaciation during the Eocene–Oligocene 
Transition(∼33.7Ma,Oi1) is
linked to declining atmospheric pCO2 levels, yet the mechanisms that forced 
pCO2 decline remain
elusive. Biogenic silicon cycling is inextricably linked to both long and 
shortterm carbon cycling
through the diatoms, siliceous walled autotrophs which today account for 
upto 40% of primary
production.It is hypothesised that during the Late Eocenea sharp rise in 
diatom abundance could have
contributed to pCO2 drawdown and global cooling by increasing the 
proportion of organic carbon
buried in marine sediment. Diatom and sponge silicon isotope ratios (δ30Si) 
are here combined for the
first time to reconstruct the late Eocene–early Oligoceneocean silicon 
cycle and provide new insight
into the role of diatom productivity in Antarctic glaciation. At ODP site 
1090 in the Southern Ocean, a
0.6‰ rise in diatom δ30Si through the late Eocene documents increasing 
diatom silicic acid utilisation
with high, near modern values attained by the earliest Oligocene. A 
concomitant 1.5‰  decline in
sponge δ30Si at ODP site 689 on the Maud Rise tracks an approximate 
doubling of intermediate depth
silicic acid concentration in the high southern latitudes. Intermediate 
depth silicic acid concentration
peaked at ∼31.5Ma, coincident with the final establishment of a deepwater 
pathway through the
Tasman Gateway and Drake Passage. These results suggest that upwelling 
intensification related to the
spin-up of a circum-Antarctic current may have driven late Eocene diatom 
proliferation.Organic
carbon burial associated with higher diatom abundance and export provides a 
mechanism that can
account for pCO2 drawdown not only at, but also prior to Antarctic 
glaciation as required by a pCO2
‘threshold’ mechanism for ice sheet growth.

-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Re: Oli Morton with Opinion Article on Nitrogen Geoengineering

[M V Bhaskar]

Andrew

There is a difference between Engineering and Geoengineering.
The examples you gave are simple engineering solutions not Geoengineering.

The Geo in Geoengineering means that BEFORE action is started (research or 
deployment) there is an INTENT to use on global scale.

An engineering solution is not Geoengineering merely because it impacts the 
whole world, the intent to impact the whole world should be explicitly be 
present and stated.

The person who discovered fire did not INTEND to set fire to the whole 
world, they just wanted to cook a hot meal.
The person who first cleared a forest with an axe did not INTEND to cut 
down ALL the forests in the world, they just wanted to clear a small patch 
of land to grow enough food for themselves, etc.
It is only incidental that all the people in the world adopted these 
solutions and caused global impact.

N fixation started AFTER the WHOLE world was surveyed and the TOTAL amount 
of Nitrate deposits worldwide was quantified and it was computed that this 
would be inadequate to kill or feed the world after a few decades.

regards

Bhaskar

On Thursday, 11 July 2013 12:09:00 UTC+5:30, O Morton wrote:

 @ Andrew -- There is a continuum here, but i would distinguish 
 large-scale and global, and note that global effects of clearance on 
 climate (as opposed to homogocene issues) not large, or even necessarily 
 noticeable

 @ Fred -- method might be nice -- but read Crookes, the key document here, 
 and the scientific method is not obvious. The fact that he was speaking to 
 and trying to speak for a scientific elite matters, I think. Remember a key 
 part of Bolin's plan for IPCC was to get global buy in to elite scientific 
 view. Also note that I do not see elite in this context as pejorative, 
 merely descriptive

 @ David -- Not quite sure why the existing political order is irrelevant, 
 but in general i agree with Phil's informal definition -- except that I 
 don't think limate is the only thing that can be geoengineered/ Change to 
 teh way the earth system works made deliberately not carelessly would suit 
 me fine. And I don't think introduction of agriculture was intended 
 deliberately to change the earth system, while nitrogen was, to a 
 significant extent. Green revolution is, after all, an expression of global 
 geopolitics, named is specific opposition to the red revolution

 On Wednesday, 10 July 2013 17:38:45 UTC+1, David Lewis wrote:

 I wonder why it should matter who identified the problem or who thought 
 of the solution, i.e. a member or members of the scientific elite.  Why 
 should it matter whether the perceived problem is obvious to the person on 
 the street?  And whether the proposed solution or any solution other than 
 the proposed geoengineering scheme can be implemented easily by the 
 existing political order or not seems irrelevant.  

 Phil Rausch recently gave a talk entitled Geoengineering at the AGU 
 Chapman conference on Communicating Climate Science (available 
 *here*http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=coa3VFcMCIA) 
 where he referred to geoengineering as the introduction of climate change 
 deliberately rather than carelessly, which seems to be at the heart of 
 what the word means to actively researching contemporary climatologists.  

 Bringing the nitrogen cycle up while discussing geoengineering seems 
 useful as a way to talk about the fact that humans have had an impact on 
 the planet for some time, but the question is, does it advance the debate 
 to include it as geoengineering now?  

 On Wednesday, July 10, 2013 3:43:49 AM UTC-7, O Morton wrote:

 David (and also Andrew),-- if you look at Morton's reasoning as 
 expressed in the text, you'll find that I don't agree.

 The technology required for the industrial takeover of the nitrogen 
 cycle did not appear through an unguided process of innovation, nor was it 
 deployed that way; the foresight involved is part of what makes it a 
 geoengineering technology in a way that other agricultural innovations, and 
 indeed agriculture itself, are not. Nitrogen fixation was developed 
 purposefully in response to a threat, which, while not obvious in everyday 
 life, had been identified by the scientific elite. Like climate change 
 today, that threat was seen as being of global significance and to have no 
 easily attainable political solution. That justified a concerted effort to 
 develop a technological response. Though people working in the climate 
 arena may not immediately recognize this response as geoengineering, some 
 of those working on the nitrogen cycle have no problem seeing it as such.



-- 
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 

[geo] Re: Role of biogenic silica in the removal of iron from the Antarctic seas : Nature Communications : Nature Publishing Group

[M V Bhaskar]

Diatoms evolved about 200 million years ago, so how can iron removal by 
Diatoms be called a NEW pathway.
It is well known that Diatoms sequester carbon, so obviously they also 
sequester Iron and N and P too when they sink to the ocean bed - what is 
NEW about this ?

The quantification of the amount of Iron removed by Diatoms may be a new 
study that has not been attempted before.

When other organisms consume Iron it is recycled near the surface, when 
Diatoms consume it, some of the Iron sinks to the ocean bed and is removed 
from the surface waters. That is precisely why Iron fertilization is 
advocated to grow more Diatoms that sink and sequester carbon ( and Iron). 
It is precisely because the iron is being removed from the surface waters 
that Iron Fertilization is required.

Every farmer knows that soil may become iron ( or other micro nutrient) 
deficient due to repeated harvests and they too fertilize fields with Iron, 
Zinc, Sulfur, etc.

An explanation of the paper in simple language is available on -
http://www.anl.gov/articles/questions-rise-about-seeding-ocean-c02-sequestration
This has some very peculiar and irrational statements -
Rather than feed the growth of extra plankton, triggering algal blooms, 
the iron fertilization may instead stimulate the gluttonous diatoms to take 
up even more iron to build larger shells. When the shells get large enough, 
they sink to the ocean floor, sequestering the iron and starving off the 
diatom's plankton peers.
...
In the paper Role of biogenic silica in the removal of iron from the 
Antarctic seas published June 10 in the journal Nature Communications, 
scientists conservatively estimate that 2.5 milligrams of iron annually is 
removed from every square meter of surface water in the Ross Sea and 
sequestered in silica skeletons on the ocean floor. This is roughly 
equivalent to the total amount of iron deposited annually into the Ross Sea 
surface through snow melt, dust and upwelling of seawater.

It appears that ALL the iron deposited is sequestered by Diatoms, then how 
do other organisms in the Ross sea get Iron?
The answer is perhaps that the authors have ignored the impact of recycling 
of iron near the surface before it is sequestered by Diatoms.

Other phytoplankton and organisms that consume the Iron near the surface, 
die and decompose near the surface so the iron is recycled and only when 
the Iron is consumed by Diatoms that it is removed from the surface waters 
and sequestered in the depths of the ocean. 

This is precisely the reason why Iron fertilization is required to replace 
the Iron that is removed and thus cause growth of more Diatoms that would 
sink and sequester more Carbon ( and Iron and N and P too ).

regards

Bhaskar

On Thursday, 13 June 2013 00:13:53 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:

 http://www.nature.com/ncomms/2013/130610/ncomms2981/full/ncomms2981.html

 Abstract

 Iron has a key role in controlling biological production in the Southern 
 Ocean, yet the mechanisms regulating iron availability in this and other 
 ocean regions are not completely understood. Here, based on analysis of 
 living phytoplankton in the coastal seas of West Antarctica, we present a 
 new pathway for iron removal from marine systems involving structural 
 incorporation of reduced, organic iron into biogenic silica. Export of iron 
 incorporated into biogenic silica may represent a substantial unaccounted 
 loss of iron from marine systems. For example, in the Ross Sea, burial of 
 iron incorporated into biogenic silica is conservatively estimated as 11 
 μmol m-2 per year, which is in the same range as the major bioavailable 
 iron inputs to this region. As a major sink of bioavailable iron, 
 incorporation of iron into biogenic silica may shift microbial population 
 structure towards taxa with relatively lower iron requirements, and may 
 reduce ecosystem productivity and associated carbon sequestration.


-- 
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/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Re: replace reflective ice at poles

[M V Bhaskar]

Joshua

Sodium Polyacrylte may be a good material to use -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sodium_polyacrylate

They can absorb water with micro nutrients and would slowly disintegrate 
and release the micro nutrients.
They are used in agriculture to retain water in soil.

regards

Bhaskar

On Thursday, 28 March 2013 01:47:00 UTC+5:30, Joshua Jacobs wrote:

 However silly,  there may be elements of value in musing.

 What if the high-albedo plastic(*) was both imbued with micro-nutrients 
 and set to degrade at specific rates?  Appropriate rates of decay could 
 ensure that macro-nutrients would not be depleted  before the 
 micro-nutrients.  Biological fouling aside, this might be a method to 
 combine some SRM and CDR at the same time.

 (*) high surface area and low volume spheres much like the glass spheres 
 mentioned in a much earlier post.




-- 
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?hl=en.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.

[geo] Re: Climate Change and Geoengineering: Ocean Fertilization Practicalities, Opportunities and Threats - Climate Change Policy Practice

[M V Bhaskar]

UN General Assembly Resolution of 2007 - A/RES/62/215 Oceans and the law of 
the sea
is available at 
http://daccess-dds-ny.un.org/doc/UNDOC/GEN/N07/476/67/PDF/N0747667.pdf?OpenElement

It says - 

98. Encourages States to support the further study and enhance 
understanding of ocean iron fertilization;

No country seems to have implemented this resolution, except for the 2009 
LOHAFEX experiment and the 2012 HSRC private experiment.

Even today people are opposing, rather than supporting, experimentation 

regards

Bhaskar

On Wednesday, 6 February 2013 14:21:14 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:


 http://climate-l.iisd.org/guest-articles/climate-change-and-geoengineering-ocean-fertilization-practicalities-opportunities-and-threats/

 Climate Change and Geoengineering: Ocean Fertilization Practicalities, 
 Opportunities and Threats

 Monday, February 4th, 2013
 Wendy Watson-Wright, Executive Secretary, Intergovernmental Oceanographic 
 Commission of UNESCO; Jorge Luis Valdes, Head, Ocean Sciences; and Henrik 
 Enevoldsen, Program Specialist, Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission 
 of UNESCO

 Concern over human-driven climate change and the lack of success in 
 constraining greenhouse gas emissions have increased scientific and policy 
 interest in geo-engineering - deliberate interventions in the Earth's 
 climate system that might moderate global warming. One of the earliest 
 proposed carbon-removal techniques is large-scale ocean fertilization.This 
 is accomplished by adding iron or other nutrients to surface waters. The 
 intention is to enhance microscopic marine plant growth on a scale large 
 enough to not only significantly increase the uptake of atmospheric carbon 
 by the ocean, but also remove it from the atmosphere for long enough to 
 provide global climatic benefit. This suggestion grew out of scientific 
 ideas developed in the late 1980s, based on analyses of natural, long-term 
 climate changes (i.e., ice age cycles) and experiments that provided new 
 insights into the natural factors that limit ocean productivity, and 
 thereby control the cycling of carbon between sea and sky.Major political 
 and ethical challengesUnfortunately, the practicalities, opportunities and 
 threats associated with ocean fertilization are only partly understood, and 
 will in all likelihood include unintended ecological consequences, which in 
 turn can pose important political, social and ethical challenges. 
 Small-scale field experiments and associated modelling have shown that the 
 likely maximum benefits of ocean fertilization as a negative emissions 
 technique are modest in relation to anthropogenic climate forcing. It would 
 also be highly challenging to quantify with acceptable accuracy the amount 
 of carbon removed from circulation on a long-term basis, and in particular 
 to adequately monitor unintended impacts over large space and 
 time-scales.Meeting the political, ethical and regulatory challenges of 
 geo-engineering, including ocean fertilization, requires building toward an 
 international governance framework to ensure that research of this nature 
 is conducted responsibly and transparently. A global and effective 
 regulatory mechanism is needed to be put in place for ocean fertilization, 
 other than for small-scale scientific research studies within coastal 
 waters.The United Nations General Assembly has encouraged States to support 
 further study and to enhance understanding of ocean fertilization 
 (Resolution 62/215; December 2007). Four UN entities have major interests 
 in this topic: the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO 
 (IOC), the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD), the London Convention 
 and Protocol (LC/LP) and the UN Convention on the Law of the Sea (UNCLOS). 
 Together they cover the spectrum of marine science, marine conservation and 
 pollution regulation.Ocean fertilization activities on holdIn response to 
 concerns that large-scale ocean fertilization might be attempted before its 
 consequences were fully understood, and upholding the precautionary 
 principle, the Parties to the CBD decided in 2008 that no further ocean 
 fertilization activities for whatever purpose should be carried out in 
 non-coastal waters until there is stronger scientific justification, 
 assessed through a global regulatory mechanism. Such a regulatory framework 
 is now being developed by the LC/LP.The IOC has been closely involved in 
 CBD and LC/LP discussions. Our 2009 publication, Ocean Fertilization: A 
 Scientific Summary for Policy Makers, was commissioned in conjunction with 
 the Surface Ocean - Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), the International 
 Commission on Atmospheric Chemistry and Global Pollution (ICACGP), the 
 World Climate Research Programme (WCRP), the International 
 Geosphere-Biosphere Programme (IGBP) and the Scientific Committee on 
 Oceanic Research (SCOR) of the International Council for Science (ICSU). It 
 includes in its 

[geo] Re: New Research on OIF

[M V Bhaskar]

Joshua

How is Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue related to OIF - Ocean Iron 
Fertilization.

I wonder how Ocean Sequestration of crop residue is regarded as economical.
Farm land is generally deep inland - US Midwest, etc., the cost of 
transporting the crop residue to deep ocean for sequestration would be very 
high.

How would you put it into the depths of the ocean?

regards

Bhaskar

On Friday, 14 December 2012 23:30:30 UTC+5:30, Joshua Jacobs wrote:

 Despite its shortcomings, OIF may have a role.

 I don't know if the following research has been followed up on:

 Ocean Sequestration of Crop Residue Carbon:
 Recycling Fossil Fuel Carbon Back to Deep Sediments

 Stuard E. Strand, Gregory Benford

 For significant impact any method to remove CO2 from the atmosphere must 
 process large amounts of carbon efficiently, be repeatable, sequester 
 carbon for thousands of years, be practical, economical and be implemented 
 soon. The only method that meets these criteria is removal of crop residues 
 and burial in the deep ocean. We show here that this method is 92% 
 efficient in sequestration of crop residue carbon while cellulosic ethanol 
 production is only 32% and soil sequestration is about 14% efficient. Deep 
 ocean sequestration can potentially capture 15% of the current global CO2 
 annual 
 increase, returning that carbon back to deep sediments, confining the 
 carbon for millennia, while using existing capital infrastructure and 
 technology. Because of these clear advantages, we recommend enhanced 
 research into permanent sequestration of crop residues in the deep ocean.

 http://pubs.acs.org/doi/abs/10.1021/es8015556 


 On Thursday, December 13, 2012 2:35:53 PM UTC-8, Wil Burns wrote:

 FYI. Wil 
 http://sydney.edu.au/news/84.html?newscategoryid=2newsstoryid=10740utm_source=consoleutm_medium=newsutm_campaign=cws

 -- 
 Dr. Wil Burns, Associate Director
 Master of Science - Energy Policy  Climate Program 
 Johns Hopkins University
 1717 Massachusetts Avenue, NW
 Room 104J
 Washington, DC  20036
 202.663.5976 (Office phone)
 650.281.9126 (Mobile)
 wbu...@jhu.edu

 http://advanced.jhu.edu/academic/environmental/master-of-science-in-energy-policy-and-climate/index.html
  
 SSRN site (selected publications): http://ssrn.com/author=240348

  
 Skype ID: Wil.Burns

 Teaching Climate/Energy Law  Policy Blog: 
 http://www.teachingclimatelaw.org




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/vQTjOyxGAd8J.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: New EPA report

[M V Bhaskar]

Diatom biomass is not one of the indicators listed by EPA, this is rather 
unfortunate.

There is ample evidence that Diatom Algae are declining and other algae 
increasing.
Diatoms grow better in winter and spring and other algae in summer and 
autumn, so warmer water is one of the reason for increase in 'algal' blooms 
of cyanobacteria and dinoflagellates.

Some of the indicators are -


   - Ragweed Pollen 
Seasonhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/society-eco/ragweed.html
   - Length of Growing 
Seasonhttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/society-eco/growing-season.html
   - Leaf and Bloom 
Dateshttp://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/society-eco/leaf-bloom-dates.html

All these relate to plants on land, growth of phytoplankton / algae in 
water is not listed as an indicator, though about 50% of photosynthesis on 
Earth takes place in water.

The time when bloom of Diatoms / Cyanobacteria start in Spring / Summer, 
the intensity of bloom, the number of days it lasts, etc. are all 
indicators of the climate and have an impact on the climate. In general 
Diatoms are good for the climate and Cyanobacteria and Dinoflagellates are 
bad.

A few report about Climate change and algae -

http://phys.org/news/2012-09-climate-algal-blooms-dead-zones.html

(Phys.org)—Climate change is expected to increase the frequency of intense 
spring rain storms in the Great Lakes region throughout this century and 
will likely add to the number of harmful algal blooms and dead zones in 
Lake Erie, unless additional conservation actions are taken, according to a 
University of Michigan aquatic ecologist.

http://www.cop.noaa.gov/stressors/extremeevents/hab/current/CC_habs.aspx
How is Climate Change Affecting HABs Today?

Recent data shows that unusual or unprecedented algal blooms have been 
linked to climate anomalies (e.g., Belgrano et al. 1999, Skjodal and Dundas 
1991, Cloern et al. 2006, Moore et al. 2009). Further, rising sea surface 
temperatures have been associated with increases in dinoflagellates (many 
HAB species are dinoflagellates) in the North Atlantic, North Sea, and 
Baltic Sea and with an earlier appearance of dinoflagellates in the 
seasonal cycle (reviewed by Dale et al. 2006). Evidence also indicates that 
climate warming may benefit some species of harmful cyanobacteria (both 
freshwater and marine) by providing more optimal conditions for their 
growth (reviewed by Paerl and Huisman 2008 and 2009). Increasing 
temperature and CO2 either alone or in combination with nutrient 
availability may determine the growth and relative abundance of HAB species 
(Fu et al. 2008). Historical evidence from long term phytoplankton 
monitoring data and fossil records suggests that future climate warming 
could impact HABs through the alteration of their geographic range and 
shifts toward relatively more and earlier blooms (reviewed by Dale et al. 
2006).

regards

Bhaskar


On Tuesday, December 11, 2012 9:05:53 AM UTC+5:30, Mike MacCracken wrote:

 The EPA put out a new climate indicators report today. You can access it 
 at 
 http://www.epa.gov/climatechange/science/indicators/index.html 

 Best, Mike MacCracken 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/SAWtzr8Xr5IJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth

[M V Bhaskar]

David

same old mind-set of controlling nature.

Controlling nature vs controlling human behaviour.
This is the issue to be discussed.

Nature is more predictable and controllable.
Human behavior is more unpredictable and hence less controllable.

Unfortunately, many people dream of controlling human behavior.

Emission reduction is a laudable goal but it involves controlling 
human behavior - 7 billion+ in 184 countries.

regards

Bhaskar


 

 --
 *From:* David Lewis jrando...@gmail.com javascript:*To:* 
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:*Cc:* 
 andrew@gmail.comjavascript:; 
 di...@etcgroup.org???; moo...@etcgroup.org javascript:*Sent:* Sun, 
 November 18, 2012 2:27:54 AM*Subject:* Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. 
 (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth A few more revealing 
 nuggets:

 ETC says it wants all reference to climate taken out of definitions of 
 geoengineering, i.e. the laudable goal of combating climate change *has 
 no place* in the definition of geoengineering, as it suggests that 
 geoengineering technologies do, in fact, combat climate change.  Their 
 preferred definition?  ETC placed their preferred definition in a separate 
 box on page 216, highlighted in red: ETC group defines geoengineering as 
 the intentional, large-scale technological manipulation of the Earth’s 
 systems,* including systems related to climate*.  

 I swear, I didn't make this up.  

 Some practices likely to have global impact if implemented broadly are 
 given a free ETC pass:  changing consumption patterns or adopting 
 agroecological practices do not qualify as geoengineering, although 
 either could have a noticeable impact on the climate.  This is because, 
 according to ETC:  Geoengineering is a high-technology approach. 
  Fortunately, ETC is here, ready to explain to us what is high technology, 
 and what is not.  Given ETC hostility to the 120 tonnes of fertilizer 
 dumped by the Haida off the back of a boat into the Pacific ocean recently, 
 there can be no doubt:  that was high technology.

 Some solutions are too evil to contemplate.  In a section entitled The 
 Lomborg Manoeuvre ETC laments: if we have the means to suck up 
 greenhouse gases... emitters can, in principle, continue unabated, which, 
 obviously, no one should want, even if a way to do this was found that was 
 economic.  Removing CO2 from the atmosphere is an end-of-pipe solution.  

 ETC quotes Vanadan Shiva and Simon Terry in a paragraph condemning the 
 Western, male-dominated, technological paradigm which seeks to solve the 
 problems with some same old mind-set of controlling nature.  

 Without this ETC publication to guide me, I wouldn't have known that *a 
 solution isn't good enough* unless it is conceived by the right people 
 with the right mind-set.  
   



-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/5Ph0ZbTZ8QIJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Mooney, Pat; et al. (2012): Darken the sky and whiten the earth

[M V Bhaskar]

The ETC paper is quite interesting - 

Harvard physicist and geoengineering advocate, David Keith, 
describes geoengineering in the context of climate change as ‘a 
countervailing measure, one that uses additional technology to counteract 
unwanted side effects without eliminating their root cause, “a technical 
fix”’ (Keith, 2010a: 494)

I disagree with Dr Keith.
SRM addresses the side effects of climate change but CCS technologies do 
address the root cause by removing carbon.

Only the world’s richest countries can really muster the hardware and 
software necessary to attempt rearranging the climate and resetting the 
Earth’s thermostat.

The recent experiment by Old Masset village of the Haida nation does 
disprove this. This is the first private geoengineering experiment and was 
initiated by one village acting alone.

What’s wrong with ocean fertilisation?
Phytoplankton are the foundation of the marine food chain. Iron may well 
stimulate the growth of algae blooms but their potential to capture and 
eliminate any significant amount of carbon is unproven. 
The list of potential side effects is long:

» Changes in marine food webs: Artificial plankton production may lead to 
changes in marine ecosystems at the base of the food chain, of particular 
concern when ocean ecosystems are already fragile and under stress.

We have been regularly using a pond and lake fertilization technology for 
many years, with excellent results.

» Reduced productivity in other areas: Iron-induced blooms may consume and 
deplete other vital nutrients such that areas down current from the 
fertilised area could suffer reduced plankton productivity and carbon 
fixation.

The paper discusses the overall decline in phytoplankton in the oceans and 
Iron fertilization is intended to be used only in HNLC areas of the oceans, 
so only the 'excess' nutrients would be consumed.
 
» Some scientists have raised concerns that iron fertilisation could in 
turn deplete oxygen levels at deeper levels of the ocean.

We have been fertilizing ponds and lakes to increase dissolved oxygen level.

» Artificially elevated nutrient levels could give rise to harmful 
algal blooms that produce toxins associated with shellfish poisoning, fatal 
to humans.

We have been fertilizing ponds and lakes to solve the problem of harmful 
algal blooms.

» The production of dimethyl-sulphide (DMS), methane, nitrous oxide and 
volatile methyl halides can alter weather patterns unpredictably, cause 
ozone depletion and open a Pandora’s box of impacts on atmospheric 
chemistry and global climate. 

When oxygen level is increased methane and nitrous oxide emissions decline.

» Ocean acidifiation could be exacerbated.

When CO2 is consumed ocean acidification can only decline not be 
exacerbated.

» Coral reefs can be dramatically afected by tiny increases in 
nutrient levels, especially nitrogen, potentially provoking the growth 
of toxic dinoflagellates.

Our fertilization solution will reduce dinoflagellates.

» Devastating impacts on the livelihoods of people who depend on healthy 
marine systems, most notably fisher folk.

Fishermen are using our fertilization solution to protect their livelyhood.

regards

Bhaskar

On Saturday, 17 November 2012 10:05:59 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote:

 A more direct link here:

 http://whatnext.org/resources/Publications/Volume-III/Single-articles/wnv3_etcgroup_144.pdf

 I thought these nuggets were especially revealing:
 Why is geoengineering unacceptable?

 It can’t be tested: No experimental phase is possible – in order to have 
 a noticeable impact on the climate, geoengineering must be deployed on a 
 massive scale. ‘Experiments’ or ‘field trials’ are actually equivalent to 
 deployment in the real world because small- scale tests do not deliver the 
 data on climate effects. For people and biodiversity, impacts would likely 
 be massive as well as immediate and possibly irreversible.
 It is unequal: OECD governments and powerful corporations (who have 
 denied or ignored climate change and its impact on biodiversity for decades 
 but are responsible, historically, for most greenhouse gas emissions) are 
 the ones with the budgets and the technology to execute this gamble with 
 Gaia.There is no reason to trust that they will have the interests of more 
 vulnerable states or peoples in mind.

 There are several examples provided in Geopiracy: The Case Against 
 Geoengineering (ETC Group, 2010: 31-32).228 Development Dialogue 
 September 2012 | What Next Volume III | Climate, Development and Equity

 It is unilateral: Although all geoengineering proposals run into tens of 
 billions of dollars, for rich nations and billionaires, they could be 
 considered relatively cheap (and simple) to deploy.The capacity to act will 
 be within the hands of those who possess the technology (individuals, 
 corporations, states) in the next few years. It is urgent that multilateral 
 measures are taken to ban any unilat- eral attempts to 

[geo] Scientific basis for Ocean Fertilization

[M V Bhaskar]

Most of the posts about the recent experiment by Haida Nation have been 
reactive, commenting on what was done by the HSRC.
I would like to present here the scientific basis for Ocean Fertilization.

All phytoplankton together account for less than 0.5 % of all biomass of 
the world. 
*http://wind-sea-algae.org/?page_id=305http://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwind-sea-algae%2Eorg%2F%3Fpage_id%3D305urlhash=Byaf
 *
*
*
All Phytoplankton together account for about 46% of all photosynthesis.*
*
http://tolweb.org/Diatoms/21810
Global Significance

It has been known for a long time that diatoms are abundant in aquatic 
habitats, forming an essential part of many food chains. However, it was 
not until the 1990s that their huge contribution to the global carbon 
economy began to be fully appreciated. A back-of-the-envelope calculation 
(Mann 1999) goes like this:

   - total net primary production for the globe is ~ 105 Pg carbon per year 
   (Field et al. 1998)
   - of this, about 46% occurs in the oceans and 54% on land (Field et al. 
   1998)
   - of the oceanic component, about one-quarter (11 Pg) takes place in 
   oligotrophic (nutrient-poor) regions, one-quarter (9.1 Pg) in eutrophic 
   (nutrient-rich) regions, and half (27.4 Pg) in the remaining mesotrophic 
   regions (Field et al. 1998)
   - diatoms account for no more than 25-30% of primary production in 
   nutrient-poor waters, but perhaps 75% in nutrient-rich regions (Nelson et 
   al. 1995); so, assume an intermediate value of 50% for mesotrophic waters
   - the total contribution made by diatoms is then {(11 × 0.25) + (27.4 × 
   0.5) + (9.1 × 0.75)} = 23.275 Pg carbon per year, which is ~ 23.5% of the 
   global total

It's probably an overestimate, but the importance of diatoms is evident 
nonetheless. For comparison, all the world's tropical rainforests fix 17.8 
Pg, all the savannas 16.8 Pg, and all the world's cultivated area another 8 
Pg. The fate of the carbon that diatoms fix is now a crucial issue in 
climate-change research.

Another way to appreciate diatoms is to realize that they give us every 
fifth breath, by the oxygen they liberate during photosynthesis.
The reason why the stock of phytoplankton is low is that they are rapidly 
consumed by Zooplankton and Fish.

*Calcium Carbonate in Fish bones *

There are today about 812 to 2050 Million tons of Fish left in the Oceans 
compared to 7,000 to 15,000 million tons estimated only two century ago. 

The remaining Fish stock produces 110 million Ton of Calcium carbonate 
Annually. Would we repopulate the Ocean with Fish to levels as two 
centuries ago. We would then increase the production of Calcium Carbonates 
by a factor of 10 to 14. Giving us an additional 1000 to 1400 million Ton 
of Calcium Carbonates. This additional Calcium Carbonate would raise the PH 
level of the Ocean, save the Coral Reefs and increase the CO2 absorption 
rate as well as help cool down the over all Oceanic Temperature and 
increase as well as accelerate the filtration of toxins and other polluted.
http://www.nowpublic.com/environment/eating-fish-kills-saving-our-oceanshttp://www.nowpublic.com/environment/eating-fish-kills-saving-our-oceans#ixzz2AYkeeKeu

*Gut balls produced by Fish *

“Almost twenty years ago, researchers at the University of Miami discovered 
that a species of toadfish carries tiny balls of calcite (CaCO3) in its 
gut. The authors suggested that this was likely a result of a filtration 
system in the fish’s stomach: water breathed in and out by the fish would 
need to be cleaned of various salts, including calcium and magnesium, to 
maintain proper salinity. These salts combine with carbon in seawater to 
form carbonates, which precipitate and collect in the fish’s gut. 

It turns out that toadfish aren’t unique. All bony fishes have this 
feature. A new study calculates that these tiny calcite stones could be a 
missing sink that accounts for 3-15% of the oceanic carbon absorption. 
That’s a big hole to plug, and the study’s figures are conservative. The 
actual number could be significantly higher. 

This provides another reason to be concerned with declining fish stocks 
worldwide.” 
*http://www.terrapass.com/blog/posts/fish-guts-carbon-sinkhttp://www.linkedin.com/redirect?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww%2Eterrapass%2Ecom%2Fblog%2Fposts%2Ffish-guts-carbon-sinkurlhash=UVGp
**
*
Thus fish too contribute to carbon sequestration not just Diatoms that fall 
to the ocean bed.

Total stock of oxygen in the atmosphere is about 1.1 million billion tons, 
all of this is due to photosynthesis.
Since 46% of photosynthesis / primary production is by phytoplankton their 
share of the oxygen is about 506,000 billion tons.
Thus, Carbon absorbed and sequestered due to the photosynthesis by 
phytoplankton is 189,750 billion tons.
This is the stock of Carbon, unfortunately the data of the annual 
sequestration of carbon due to natural processes is not available.

Since anthropogenic carbon emissions 

[geo] Re: Arctic warming and ocean productivity

[M V Bhaskar]

Haida Salmon Restoration Corp's website has detailed information on the 
project, it would be good to read these than rely upon news reports -

http://www.hsrc1.com/current-events/press-releases/press-kit-october-19-2012/
The pdfs available on this page -

http://www.hsrc1.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Backgrounder-on-Letterhead.pdf

Declining salmon prompt research action

In the spring of 2011 following unsuccessful attempts to raise funding from 
government or private investors, the people of the Village of Old Massett 
voted overwhelmingly to invest $2.5 million and create the Haida Salmon 
Restoration Corporation (HSRC). An ocean stewardship and biotechnology 
company, the corporation is a private partnership funded by the Old Massett 
Village Council.

Tied to the ocean throughout their history, the Haida people have depended 
upon salmon and a healthy marine environment for their survival. Until 30 
years ago, almost every Haida family had a fisherman bringing home a pay 
cheque, often from boats they proudly owned. Today the number of Haida 
fishermen is a fraction of their former numbers and very few own a boat. 
The village of Old Massett suffers 70 percent unemployment.

http://www.hsrc1.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Haida-Salmon-Restoration-Powerpoint.pdf
We were surprised to learn that phytoplankton, the base of the food-chain, 
is disappearing at a rate of 1% per year in our ocean.

http://www.hsrc1.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/HSRC-Measurement-tools.pdf


http://www.hsrc1.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/10/Parsons-Letter-Times-Colonist.pdf
While I agree that the procedure was scientifically hasty and 
controversial, the purpose of enhancing
salmon returns by increasing plankton production has considerable 
justification.
...
Diatoms are the clover of the sea, in that most of the world's largest 
fisheries in upwelled areas are
based on food chains initiated by diatom growth. However, in the Gulf of 
Alaska, iron, which is an
essential nutrient for diatom growth, is generally lacking.

regards

Bhaskar

On Monday, 22 October 2012 23:42:52 UTC+5:30, David Mitchell wrote:

  As many of you know, Jennifer Francis has published interesting research 
 in GRL recently regarding the amplified warming in the Arctic and how this 
 may affect the jet stream; see
  
 [1] http://www.agu.org/pubs/crossref/2012/2012GL051000.shtml 

 [2] http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4spEuh8vswE 

 [3] 
 http://e360.yale.edu/feature/linking_weird_weather_to_rapid_warming_of_the_arctic/2501/
  

 Has anyone looked into how this may affect the ocean currents and 
 upwelling?  It seems that a weaker jet stream would produce weaker ocean 
 currents and weaker upwelling, with less minerals/nutrients available for 
 phytoplankton growth.  The eastern boundary currents of oceans may be 
 especially susceptible.  The email below relates to such a current, and 
 speaks of the collapse of ocean plankton blooms that traditionally provide 
 nutrients to salmon and other marine life.  Could this collapse be linked 
 with Arctic warming amplification?

 Sincerely,

 David Mitchell
 Associate Research Professor 
 Desert Research Institute 
 Division of Atmospheric Sciences 
 2215 Raggio Parkway 
 Reno, Nevada, USA 
 Phone: 775-674-7039 
 E-mail: david.m...@dri.edu javascript: 

  

 On 10/22/2012 1:37 AM, Bhaskar M V wrote:
  
 Haida Salmon Restoration Project  

 *Legal issues -*

 The media advisory released by Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation's law 
 firm -

 http://www.newswire.ca/en/story/1055481/media-advisory-the-haida-salmon-restoration-corporation-october-19th-media-availability-on-salmon-enhancement-project
  

   MEDIA ADVISORY - The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation - October 
 19th media availability on salmon enhancement project 
  VANCOUVER, Oct. 18, 2012 /CNW/ - The Haida Salmon Restoration 
 Corporation, founded and majority owned by the Old Massett Village Council 
 of Haida Gwaii is engaged in on-going ocean research and environmental 
 studies approximately 200 nautical miles west of Haida Gwaii. This work is 
 lawful, on-going, self-funded and in compliance with the Law of the Sea 
 Convention and Canada's Ocean Act. 
  
 The purpose of this salmon-enhancement pilot research project, also called 
 ocean restoration or ocean micronutrient replenishment, is to study 
 conditions of the Haida Ocean, with particular attention to the collapse of 
 ocean plankton blooms that traditionally provide nutrients to salmon and 
 other marine life. The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation is studying and 
 developing methods that may be useful in restoring the growth of 
 phytoplankton and thereby sustain and enhance the production of all marine 
 life and create a sustainable economy for Old Massett.

- Chief Councillor Ken Rea of the Old Massett Village Council will 
outline the project and how the village initiated and founded the company 
to proceed with the project. 
- Mr. John Disney, the president of 

[geo] Re: Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international regulations

[M V Bhaskar]

Andrew

One view is that fertilizing to grow / restore fish is NOT prohibited under 
LC / LP

Pl see the presentation by Dr David Schnare 
 - 
http://www.thomasjeffersoninst.org/pdf/articles/geo_and_4climatetruths.ppt 

*Geoengineering and the Four Climate Change Truths:***

*Perspectives of a Lawyer-Scientist***

*A Presentation at the *

*Research Triangle Institute, International *

*November 18, 2008*
Slide 59 • The London Convention / London Protocol: You may 
fertilize if the intent is to grow fish but not if the intent is to dispose 
of carbon in the ocean.  Hence, focus on “restoration”.

The Haida Salmon Restoration Corporation seems to aim at restoring the 
Salmon population.

regards

Bhaskar

On Monday, 15 October 2012 17:03:21 UTC+5:30, andrewjlockley wrote:


 http://m.guardian.co.uk/environment/2012/oct/15/pacific-iron-fertilisation-geoengineering?cat=environmenttype=article

 Pacific iron fertilisation is 'blatant violation' of international 
 regulations

 Controversial US businessman's geoengineering scheme off west coast of 
 Canada contravenes two UN conventions

 A controversial American businessman dumped around 100 tonnes of iron 
 sulphate into the Pacific Ocean as part of a geoengineering scheme off the 
 west coast of Canada in July, a Guardian investigation can reveal.Lawyers, 
 environmentalists and civil society groups are calling it a blatant 
 violation of two international moratoria and the news is likely to spark 
 outrage at a United Nations environmental summit taking place in India this 
 week.Satellite images appear to confirm the claim by Californian Russ 
 George that the iron has spawned an artificial plankton bloom as large as 
 10,000 square kilometres. The intention is for the plankton to absorb 
 carbon dioxide and then sink to the ocean bed – a geoengineering technique 
 known as ocean fertilisation that he hopes will net lucrative carbon 
 credits.George is the former chief executive of Planktos Inc, whose 
 previous failed efforts to conduct large-scale commercial dumps near the 
 Galapagos and Canary Islands led to his vessels being barred from ports by 
 the Spanish and Ecuadorean governments. The US Environmental Protection 
 Agency warned him that flying a US flag for his Galapagos project would 
 violate US laws, and his activities are credited in part to the passing of 
 international moratoria at the United Nations limiting ocean fertilisation 
 experimentsScientists are debating whether iron fertilisation can lock 
 carbon into the deep ocean over the long term, and have raised concerns 
 that it can irreparably harm ocean ecosystems, produce toxic tides and 
 lifeless waters, and worsen ocean acidification and global warming.It is 
 difficult if not impossible to detect and describe important effects that 
 we know might occur months or years later, said John Cullen , an 
 oceanographer at Dalhousie University. Some possible effects, such as 
 deep-water oxygen depletion and alteration of distant food webs, should 
 rule out ocean manipulation. History is full of examples of ecological 
 manipulations that backfired.George says his team of unidentified 
 scientists has been monitoring the results of what may be the biggest ever 
 geoengineering experiment with equipment loaned from US agencies like Nasa 
 and the National Ocean and Atmospheric Administration. He told the Guardian 
 that it is the most substantial ocean restoration project in history, and 
 has collected a greater density and depth of scientific data than ever 
 before.We've gathered data targeting all the possible fears that have 
 been raised [about ocean fertilisation], George said. And the news is 
 good news, all around, for the planet.The dump took place from a fishing 
 boat in an eddy 200 nautical miles west of the islands of Haida Gwaii, one 
 of the world's most celebrated, diverse ecosystems, where George convinced 
 the local council of an indigenous village to establish the Haida Salmon 
 Restoration Corporation to channel more than $1m of its own funds into the 
 project.The president of the Haida nation, Guujaaw, said the village was 
 told the dump would environmentally benefit the ocean, which is crucial to 
 their livelihood and culture.The village people voted to support what they 
 were told was a 'salmon enhancement project' and would not have agreed if 
 they had been told of any potential negative effects or that it was in 
 breach of an international convention, Guujaaw said.International legal 
 experts say George's project has contravened the UN's convention on 
 biological diversity (CBD) and London convention on the dumping of wastes 
 at sea, which both prohibit for-profit ocean fertilisation activities.It 
 appears to be a blatant violation of two international resolutions, said 
 Kristina M Gjerde, a senior high seas adviser for the International Union 
 for Conservation of Nature. Even the placement of iron particles into the 
 ocean, 

Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.

[M V Bhaskar]

Gene

You said   ... There are a variety of possibilities to explain the warming
 ...
What are they?

The increase, over the past 200 years, in burning of fossil fuel, CO2 level 
of atmosphere and oceans and rise in temperature are very well documented 
and the correlation is very high. 

You seem to be arguing against yourself.
As per your own statement natural warming is only 0.0005 per year i.e., 0.05 
degrees over 100 years.
The actual increase in the past 100 years is about 0.8 degrees C, this is 
much more than the 0.05 degrees you mentioned.

regards

Bhaskar

On Saturday, 22 September 2012 19:59:57 UTC+5:30, Gene wrote:

 Bhaskar:

  

 You are totally correct; I could not agree more. However, potential 
 solutions depend on the cause. The global increase has been about 5 degrees 
 C for the last 10,000 years or about 0.0005 per year and 0.05 degrees for 
 the past 100 years. That gradual rise is not the current or nearterm cause 
 or issue. There are warming and cooling cycles, several per 1000 years and 
 we may be in a warming cycle that accounts for the current warming. We are 
 also in a Malenkovich cycle. There are a variety of possibilities to 
 explain the warming and CO2 may be only a minor player. The point is that 
 it is warming and the strategy for controlling the warming needs to be 
 worked out and proven so it can be implemented as necessary. To conclude it 
 is CO2 and ALL we need to do is reduce CO2 concentration is not warranted; 
 it is sheer stupidity in the extreme. We need a thermostat that works and 
 only geoengineering can provide that. I am appalled that the CO2 freaks 
 have been able to block the emergence of a serious geoengineering effort.

  

 -gene

  --

 *From: *M V Bhaskar bhaska...@gmail.com javascript:
 *To: *geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Cc: *eugg...@comcast.net javascript:, rev...@gmail.com javascript:, 
 Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu javascript:, 
 Geoengineering geoengi...@googlegroups.com javascript:
 *Sent: *Saturday, September 22, 2012 8:05:50 AM
 *Subject: *Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.

 Eugene

 What difference does the cause of the problem make to solving the problem?
 If Global warming and ocean acidification are problems, we should find 
 ways to solve or mitigate them.

 No one is trying to punish anyone for causing the problems.
 We are only trying to solve it. 

 I am sure that you will agree that even if global warming is, mainly or 
 partly, due to natural factors, anthropogenic activity is adding fuel to 
 the fire. :)

 regards

 Bhaskar

 On Saturday, 22 September 2012 08:59:16 UTC+5:30, Greg Rau wrote: 

  Eugene,
 What then is your opinion on anthropogenic CO2 induced ocean 
 acidification?
 Thanks,
 Greg

  --
 *From:* eugg...@comcast.net eugg...@comcast.net
 *To:* rev...@gmail.com
 *Cc:* Ken Caldeira kcal...@carnegiescience.edu; Geoengineering 
 geoengi...@googlegroups.com
 *Sent:* Fri, September 21, 2012 2:09:31 PM
 *Subject:* Re: [geo] Geo-engineering and Arctic mentioned here.

 Fascinating input. Scary. Good input but spoiled gratuitously. I take 
 exception to the gratuitous comment in the second paragraph of 'human 
 driven'  cause ignoring the fact that it not scientifically proven 
 that global warming is human driven and because it has been warming on 
 average for 10,000 years without enough humans or CO2 around to make a 
 difference; AND there are cycles of warming and cooling overlaying the 
 general warming trend. One can have an opinion, FINE, but opinion does not 
 substitute for proven science and the theory of CO2-driven global warming 
 clearly remains to be proven using the accepted scientific process. Science 
 is not an election and AGW remains to be proven. until it is proven it 
 remains a not so robust hypothesis. Why is that so hard to understand? Is 
 it debatable?




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/3UIyIBsuBKoJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: [geo] Nature eifex report

[M V Bhaskar]

Morton

Iron fertilization is planned to be used in HNLCs, i.e., areas that have 
high nutrient levels year after year.
So it appears that there is a abundance of nutrients in the oceans.

In the past the CO2 levels of atmosphere and oceans were lower due to 
natural factors and diatom growth higher, so nutrients to support this were 
available.

O2 levels of atmosphere is today ~ 21 %, peak was ~ 35%.
So nutrients to support more than 50% higher photosynthesis was available 
at that point in time.

P is available only as a solid or dissolved in water, never as gas.
N may exit lakes and oceans as N2 gas but not P.

So P to support much higher level of photosynthesis was and is available on 
land or in water, if it has to be transported it can be done - whether 100 
tankers are required or 1000 tankers are required will be known only if we 
experiment.

Excess carbon in the atmosphere is about 200 billion tons - 390 ppm - 280 
ppm.
At 100 : 1, total P requires is less than 1 billion tons. 

Annual carbon emissions are 10 billion tons of C, P required is about 50 
million tons.

Global Rock Phosphate production is 256 million tons.
Rock Phosphate reserves in Western Sahara alone are about 50 Billion tons.
http://minerals.usgs.gov/minerals/pubs/commodity/phosphate_rock/mcs-2012-phosp.pdf

There seems to be no danger of running out of phosphorus.

Before you ask how many tankers are required, please read -

African dust leads to large toxic algal bloom
http://eospso.gsfc.nasa.gov/ftp_docs/African_Dust.pdf 

Each year, several hundred million tons of African dust are transported 
westward over the Atlantic
to the Caribbean, Gulf of Mexico, Central America, and South America.

Plant-like bacteria use the iron to set the stage for red tide, a toxic 
algal bloom. When iron levels
go up, these bacteria, called Trichodesmium, process the iron and release 
nitrogen in the water,
converting it to a form usable by other marine life. The increased nitrogen 
in the water makes the
Gulf of Mexico a friendlier environment for toxic algae. The image on the 
left shows a red tide
event that was seen by the SeaWiFS sensor on August 26, 2001. A huge bloom 
of toxic red algae,
called Karenia brevis (K. brevis), appears on the true-color image as a 
black area hugging the
Florida Gulf Coast from the Keys to Tampa Bay.

The dust contains P, Si and Fe.
N is fixed from atmosphere by cyanobacteria - Trichodesmium.

The key is to ensure bloom of useful algae and not harmful algae.
We have the key. We can prevent this dust from causing toxic algal bloom by 
a very scientific fertilization to cause a controlled bloom of diatoms 
instead of dinoflagellates (red tides). 

regards

Bhaskar 

On Saturday, 21 July 2012 17:31:15 UTC+5:30, O Morton wrote:

 The reported ratio of C:Fe for IEFEX is 10,000:1. The redfield C:P ration 
 is about 100:1. So you'd need your 100 tankers to be carrying pure 
 phosphate, not sewage, no? 




-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To view this discussion on the web visit 
https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/L8oG3vHdyQsJ.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Ocean albedo modification

[M V Bhaskar]

Dear Dr Vivien

You said -

 Also, how could you ensure the right phytoplankton would bloom to ensure 
 the albedo effect.

This is the core issue.

Based on a combined reading of all papers on the subject I understand
the following -
Coccolithophores increase Albedo and DMS production and
Diatoms sequester more carbon by falling to ocean bed.

Coccolithophores have a calcium carbonate shell and Diatoms a silica
shell.

Since 2005 we are successfully growing Diatoms in open waters in large
lakes, using our silica based micro nutrient.
This works on the principle that since Diatoms require silica, they
consume it and grow rapidly and dominate the water as long as it is
fertilized with this product.

This product also contains calcium, but only a very small quantity -
the amount required for photosynthesis.

Perhaps if we increase the calcium to the maximum extent possible, we
can make Coccolithophores consume it and bloom rapidly and also
sustain the bloom for a long period of time, through continuous
fertilization.

Thus we can achieve a more targeted phytoplankton bloom, by developing
products / fertilizers that focus on each species / group of
phytoplankton.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.nualgi.com/new

On Apr 18, 10:11 pm, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 I think Chris Viven has it right.

 But, if you are still interested in pursuing this, Toby Tyrrell has looked
 into this a bit.

 http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/optics.html

 On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Andrew Lockley 
 andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:







  I have been advised to use GNU Octave for image processing.  My guess is
  the the best way to do this would be to draw a rectangle over the bloom and
  compare it to a control rectangle elsewhere in the image. However, a pixel
  by pixel comparison would also be useful, as it would better display the
  range of albedo. Pixel comparisons would be prone to much greater error, as
  I might pick a lucky pixel out.

  I have no experience of this kind of thing at all, so any tips or comments
  are welcome.  At this stage I'm just looking to get some back of envelope
  calculations for the list, not get anything you could publish.

  One particular concern I have is that the infra red (particularly the near
  infra red) will be very significant. Obviously, this won't show up on a
  photo. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to treat this?

  A
  On Apr 18, 2012 1:20 PM, Chris chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk wrote:

  Andrew,

  If you search Google Images for 'ocean fertilisation' you will find a
  number of satellite images of blooms from ocean fertilisation
  experiments. Here are a couple of examples:

 http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/additional/science-focus/oce...
 http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php

  Also, if you search Google Images for 'Phytoplankton bloom' you will
  find plenty of images and there is a particularly good one from the
  western English Channel of a very bright coccolithophore bloom on this
  page:http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/satbloompics.html.

  However, don't get too carried away with the possibility of generating
  phytoplankton blooms for their albedo effect. They would have all the
  potential side-effects of ocean fertilisation and since phytoplankton
  blooms are transient events, I find it difficult to see how you could
  maintain a significant albedo effect over time. Also, how could you
  ensure the right phytoplankton would bloom to ensure the albedo
  effect.

  Chris.

  On Apr 17, 2:56 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:
   This image appears to show a clear albedo effect from blooms

  http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phytoplankton_SoAtlantic_20060215.
  ..

   Does anyone have a set of high quality ocean iron fertilization images
   which can be formally evaluated for albedo? I think this would be a very
   interesting study.

   Maybe we have missed a trick on OIF? Maybe It's actually an albedo SRM
   method cunningly disguised as CDR.

   Interestingly this would make a powerful negative feedback which could
   explain the decent into glacials, as aeolian dust fluxes into the
  southern
   ocean changed albedo, causing feedbacks which caused further  cooling
  and
   drying as well as carbon drawdown. This would then lead to more dust
  flux,
   etc.

   Hopefully someone can check whether the above is right or not.

   A
   On Apr 15, 2012 5:22 PM, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com
  wrote:

Scientific American article identifies AGW sea albedo effect.  This
potentially suggests ocean fertilization and similar manipulations
  could
target albedo, not CO2. Awesome possibilities.  Geoengineers, start
  your
computers.

A

*sciam* Ocean-Borne Microbes May Help Speed Warminghttp://
  t.co/NDQd2jm4

Ocean-Borne Microbes May Help Speed Warming

The proliferation of cyanobacteria in oceans may accelerate warming

By Lucas Laursen 

[geo] O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising

[M V Bhaskar]

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/O2DroppingFasterThanCO2Rising.php

O2 Dropping Faster than CO2 Rising

Implications for Climate Change Policies

New research shows oxygen depletion in the atmosphere accelerating
since 2003, coinciding with the biofuels boom; climate policies that
focus exclusively on carbon sequestration could be disastrous for all
oxygen-breathing organisms including humans
Dr. Mae-Wan Ho

..

Mae-Wan Ho Comment left 22nd August 2009 06:06:43
Ben, you are missing something. First, O2 is there principally because
of carbon storage time, its rate of drop currently is ~10 ppm [ per
annum ], but it could well swing further downwards.

---

CO2 increase is 1.8 ppm per annum - increase from 280 ppm to 380 ppm
in 200 years at an accelerating rate.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/OceanCarbonSink.php

The researchers found that the average photosynthesis over all the
marine stations in northeast Atlantic was 2 600 + 271 mg O2/m2/day,
while the average community respiration was 3 821 + 276 mg O2/m2/day.
Clearly, respiration rate was far in excess of photosynthesis.
Additional evidence indicated that over the period of a year,
respiration still exceeded gross production.

http://www.i-sis.org.uk/GlobalWarmingPlankton.php

The plankton of the oceans will capture 4 Gt of carbon less per year
by the end of this century, representing a reduction of 21 percent.
This is equivalent to one-third of current worldwide emissions by
industrial activities and would significantly aggravate the
anthropogenic effects on climate change.

Restoring the Phytoplankton of the oceans is the best solution to stop
increase in GHGs in the atmosphere.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Marine mass extinctions

[M V Bhaskar]

Andrew

Thanks.

The evolution of fish ( increase in numbers and diversity ) and
evolution of diatoms is closely interlinked.

The earliest known fossil diatoms date from the early Jurassic (~185
Ma)

Kooistra, W. H. C. F.; Medlin, L. K. (1996). Evolution of the diatoms
(Bacillariophyta) : IV. A reconstruction of their age from small
subunit rRNA coding regions and the fossil record. Mol. Phylogenet.
Evol. 6: 391–407.

sedimentary evidence suggests an earlier origin.

^ Schieber, J.; Krinsley, D.; Riciputi, L. (2000). Diagenetic origin
of quartz silt in mudstones and implications for silica cycling.
Nature 406 (6799): 981–985. doi:10.1038/35023143. PMID 10984049.

Damming of rivers has also interfered with the silica cycle by
reducing flow of silt down rivers.

http://friendsofsebago.blogspot.in/

How Maine's Sea-Run Fish were Dammed into Oblivion: 1864.

Citation: Boardman, Samuel L. 'Aquaeculture': in Ninth Annual Report
of the Secretary of the Maine Board of Agriculture. 1864. Augusta,
Maine. Stevens  Sayward, Printers to the State. Also pub. in Maine
Farmer, March 23, 1865

Everyone knows, too, that many of the species of fishes which remain
permanently in our fresh waters, have very much decreased in numbers,
as well as in size and fatness. People say that this is a necessary
consequence of the building of dams and mills, and filling the streams
with obstructions of various kinds for the industrial pursuits of a
civilized community.

Please note the year - 1864 / 1865

The Dependence of the Fishes on the Diatoms
Albert Mann.
Ecology, Vol. 2, No. 2 ( Apr., 1921 ), pp. 79-83
Stable URL: http://www.jstor.org/stable/1928919

“No diatoms, no hake”

There is no better illustration in science of the practical value of
ecology than is afforded by the diatoms. The economic importance they
are now [1921] seen to have might have been understood fifty years
earlier [i.e, 1871] and some use might have been made of their value
during that period of time, if the inter-relation of these remarkable
plants with other forms of aquatic life had been prominent in the
minds of investigators. As it is, they remained for many years little
more than the playthings of microscopists, prized and wondered over
because of their astonishing beauty, collected at great expense by
enthusiastic amateurs, and illustrated in costly books, which may be
searched through in vain for any hint of their worth outside of that
belonging to their symmetry of form and striking loveliness of
design.

For the past 90 / 140 years Diatoms have been badly neglected, we are
trying to remedy the situation.

Another post on Friends of Sebago Bay blog -

http://friendsofsebago.blogspot.in/2010/11/fosl-letter-to-ferc-11-26-10.html

The restoration of Diatoms and Fish is a very important
Geoengineering / Bioengineering / Geobioengineering goal.

regards

Bhaskar
www.nualgi.com/new


On Feb 11, 6:43 pm, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com wrote:
 This fascinating article in new 
 scientisthttp://www.newscientist.com/mobile/article/dn21441-most-fish-in-the-s...

 Discusses this paper
 Journal reference: Proceedings of the Royal SocietyB, DOI:
 10.1098/rspb.2012.0075

 So what have fish got to do with geoengineering? A lot, imo.

 If the sea is so vulnerable to extinctions that it can't sustain fish, and
 requires re seeding from rivers, we best work harder to protect it from
 anoxia, acidification and other AGW related horrors.

 As the article points out, these treats are coming down the pipe at us
 already.

 A

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Further thoughts on Arctic methane

[M V Bhaskar]

Thanks Charlie for posting the link to Archer's article.

The article says -

On land, there is lots of methane in the thawing Arctic, exploding lakes and 
what not. This methane is probably produced by decomposition of thawing 
organic matter.

So quite a bit of the methane being released into the atmosphere is
freshly produced methane and not release of frozen methane.

And so far, the sources of methane from high latitudes are small, relative to 
the big player, which is wetlands in warmer climes. It is very difficult to 
know whether the bubbles are a brand-new methane source caused by global 
warming, or a response to warming that has happened over the past 100 years, 
or whether plumes like this happen all the time. In any event, it doesn’t 
matter very much unless they get 10 or 100 times larger, because high-latitude 
sources are small compared to the tropics.

This is a very important observation.

The methane being released in the Arctic is visible to the naked eye
and what we see is often quite dramatic - bubbles and flames from
lakes but the methane being released in tropics is not visible - the
silent killer.

So are we just getting carried away by what we see.

regards

Bhaskar


On Jan 5, 10:53 pm, Charlie Zender zen...@uci.edu wrote:
 David Archer's new piece on Methanageddon is worthwhile reading

 http://www.realclimate.org/index.php/archives/2012/01/much-ado-about-...

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Mid Oceanic C4 plantations for Longterm GW Mitigation

[M V Bhaskar]

Michael

Diatoms too use C4 photosynthesis.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11069177
Unicellular C4 photosynthesis in a marine diatom.
Reinfelder JR, Kraepiel AM, Morel FM.

Abstract

Nearly 50 years ago, inorganic carbon was shown to be fixed in
microalgae as the C3 compound phosphoglyceric acid. The enzyme
responsible for C3 carbon fixation, ribulose-1,5-bisphosphate
carboxylase (Rubisco), however, requires inorganic carbon in the form
of CO2 (ref. 2), and Rubisco enzymes from diatoms have half-saturation
constants for CO2 of 30-60 microM (ref. 3). As a result, diatoms
growing in seawater that contains about 10 microM CO2 may be CO2
limited. Kinetic and growth studies have shown that diatoms can avoid
CO2 limitation, but the biochemistry of the underlying mechanisms
remains unknown. Here we present evidence that C4 photosynthesis
supports carbon assimilation in the marine diatom Thalassiosira
weissflogii, thus providing a biochemical explanation for CO2-
insensitive photosynthesis in marine diatoms. If C4 photosynthesis is
common among marine diatoms, it may account for a significant portion
of carbon fixation and export in the ocean, and would explain the
greater enrichment of 13C in diatoms compared with other classes of
phytoplankton. Unicellular C4 carbon assimilation may have predated
the appearance of multicellular C4 plants.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1976569/

regards

Bhaskar

On Jun 28, 10:13 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi Folks,

 Mark Capron has proposed Ocean Afforestation within this forum going back to
 at least 09. And, much of that work is centered around diatom enhancement
 for general CCS and possible biomass harvesting for methane fuel production
 and more. C4 halophytes *(1)* could be an important enhancement to that
 initial ocean afforestation strategy.

 Wiki *(2)* C4 plants represent about 5% of Earth's plant biomass and 1% of
 its known plant species. Despite this scarcity, they account for about 30%
 of terrestrial carbon fixation. Increasing the proportion of C4 plants on
 earth could assist 
 biosequestrationhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Biosequestration of
 CO2 and represent an important climate 
 changehttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Climate_change avoidance
 strategy. Present-day C4 plants are concentrated in the tropics (below
 latitudes of 45°) where the high air temperature contributes to higher
 possible levels of oxygenase activity by 
 RuBisCOhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/RuBisCO,
 which increases rates of photorespiration in C3 plants.

 Although there are many C4 plants that can be used in this type of
 CCS strategy, I point out three. The Phyllostachys edulis* *Bamboo *(3)* has
 the broadest commercial use of any C4 plants and can also be used
 to propagate the physical scale needed of a large scale ocean afforestation
 effort...it's cheap and it floats. Also, it provides a matrix for a high
 protein mushroom ie. Polyporus phyllostachydis *(4)*. Bambusa oldhamii (the
 fastest growing terrestrial plant) *(5)* is a good candidate for maximum CCS
 rates. More on bamboo below. The third principle crop being proposed is the
 halophyte Salicornia bigelovii *(6)*.

 The Salicornia bigelovii plant has a unique combination of attributes. It
 can be used for food, biofuel production and can be irrigated (
 hydroponiclly) with salt water.

 The cost factor:

 The back of the envelope estimates of the needed additional grow space to
 off set all anthropomorphic CO2 emissions per yr (30 B t/yr)* (7)* with an
 estimated C4 CO2 uptake of 6650 tons per km2/yr, would be roughly equal to
 4.5 M km2. That is about the size of Antarctica.

 Building such a large area operation on shore would have high level
 political/land cost considerations. The only place on the planet which can
 provide this scale of operation would be the mid-ocean regions (Gyres). Land
 based Halophyte farming for biofuel is currently underway at a few sites *
 (8)*.

 Wiki; There are experimental fields of Salicornia in Ras al-Zawr (Saudi
 Arabia), Eritrea http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eritrea (Northeast Africa)
 and Sonora http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sonora (Northwest Mexico) aimed at
 the production of biodiesel. The company responsible for the Sonora trials 
 (Global
 Seawater http://www.globalseawater.com/) claims that between 225 and 250
 gallons of BQ-9000 biodiesel can be produced per hectare (approximately 2.5
 acres) of salicornia, and is promoting a $35 million scheme to create a
 12,000-acre (49 km2) salicornia farm in Bahia de 
 Kinohttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Bahia_de_Kino
 ..

 If the start up cost estimate that is mentioned above is factored out to the
 needed 4.5 mil km2 for global CO2 mitigation, we get approximately $6.75 
 trillion
 in start up cost. If you take a $100 bbl price as being reasonable and
 factor out the biofuel production potential of the 4.5 mil km2 effort (20 B
 bbl/yr) the ball park yearly income from oil is estimated at around $2
 

[geo] Carbon sequestered in oceans - Diatoms, etc.

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi All

After studying Diatoms for past 3 years, I have listed a few questions
for which I could not find answers on the internet. Would appreciate
any help in finding answers.

1. What portion of the estimated 38000 billion tons of carbon
sequestered in the oceans is due to biological processes
(phytoplankton, zooplankton, fish, etc) in the oceans and what portion
is due to chemical processes (calcium carbonate due to chemical
reactions, etc)?

2.  Of the total amount sequestered due to biological processes how
much is due to dead phytoplankton falling to the ocean floor, how much
is due to zooplankton, how much is due to fish, whales, etc?

3. Of the amount sequestered by dead phytoplankton falling to the
ocean floor how is due to each group of phytoplankton, Diatoms,
Cyanobacteria, Green Algae, Dinoflagellates, Coccolithophores, etc?

4. Has the amount of carbon sequestered in oceans increased or
decreased over the past few decades and centuries?

5. Is the amount of carbon sequestered each year in the oceans
increasing or decreasing, i.e., are they now acting as sinks or are
they releasing CO2?

6. Does Ocean acidification indicate that carbon earlier sequestered
in the depths of the ocean is now being released to the surface?

7. What is the projection for the future for carbon sequestration in
oceans - without human intervention (business as usual scenario)?

8. Has fish biomass declined in the past few hundred years since
Industrial Revolution (perhaps from 8 to 14 billion tons 200 years ago
to 0.8 to 2 billion tons at present)? Whales have certainly been
decimated in the 19th and 20th century.

9. How has the decline in the fish biomass impacted carbon
sequestration?

10 How has the decline in whale population in the 19th and 20th
centuries impacted Diatom biomass?

11 Has the decline in whales caused a slow down of recycling of iron
and other micro nutrients ?

12 Has Diatom biomass of the oceans increased or decreased in the past
few decades / centuries?

13 Why have the number of Dead Zones increased to over 400 over the
past 50 years?

14 Why are cyanobacteria blooms causing dead zones in coastal waters?

15 Are Dead zones Carbon exporting zones, they are HNHC area - why are
they dead inspite of high level of chlorophyll?

16 Eutrophic lakes are also HNHC areas, why are they viewed with
concern? Why is the dissolved oxygen level of eutrophic lakes low
inspite of High Chlorophyll? Why do fish kills take place in eutrophic
water, inspite of or perhaps because of phytoplankton abundance?

17 Should a Ocean Fertilization product be first tested in inland
waterways and coastal waterways to prevent eutrophication and dead
zone problem, before being used in deep sea.

Sites such as these do not give much details.
http://genomicscience.energy.gov/carboncycle/index.shtml#page=news

regards

Bhaskar

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Did anybody catch BBC TV (UK) Newsnight at 23:03 on 16 June 2011?

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi

Its unfortunate that BBC is still discussing Urea fertilization of
oceans when much more sophisticated solutions are available.

Bhaskar

On Jun 17, 7:43 pm, Andrew Lockley and...@andrewlockley.com wrote:
 Hi

 Just watched it athttp://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b006mk25

 You can view it through a UK proxy if you're overseas.

 I thought it was rubbish.  The presenters had been very poorly briefed
 and failed to explain the technologies at all.  The options were
 presented as
 1) space mirrors,
 2) urea fertilisation of the oceans, or
 3) chemical CO2 scrubbing.
  Later they discussed sulfur, but without giving any real context.

 The whole discussion seemed predicated on the argument that GE might
 be a bit more deliverable than emissions cuts.  The Greenpeace guy
 didn't give Ken the roasting I was expecting, but he basically put
 forward the argument as loft insulation vs geoengineering.  We need
 to put across to the public that it's not like that.  In fact, it's
 more likely that it's loft insulation plus everything else we can
 think of plus geoengineering and then if we're really lucky we might
 not have a mass extinction.  Ken mentioned the methane issue, but
 didn't get the opportunity to present the implications properly.

 To my ear, it completely missed the point that we're just about to
 sail over the waterfall in a barrel, and GE might offer a paddle (or a
 parachute) to save us from what could just out to be a re-run of the
 PT Mass Extinction.

 To me the whole presentation of the issue lacked the abject screaming
 panic that the science suggests is necessary.  It made me want to
 shout at the screen.  But hey, maybe I'm just a doom-monger, and we'll
 all just be fine.  Normally I like being smug and right but it won't
 do me much good if everyone's dead.

 A

 On 17 June 2011 05:37, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu wrote:







  I was on BBC TV (UK) Newsnight at 23:03 on 16 June 2011 with Doug Parr of
  Greenpeace for a short discussion about geoengineering.

  Unfortunately, I do not think it is available for streaming (at least not
  outside of the UK).  Did anybody see it?

  Just wondering how it came off.

 http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/programmes/newsnight/default.stm
  ___
  Ken Caldeira

  Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
  260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
  +1 650 704 7212 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
 http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

  --
  You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups
  geoengineering group.
  To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
  To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
  geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
  For more options, visit this group at
 http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Mid-Oceanic Diatom Entrapment System Technology.....MODEST

[M V Bhaskar]

Michael

The article says -

As it remains dissolved the breakdown processes can lead to oxygen
shortages in the water column and associated ecological damage.

Saturday one of the Geoscience authors, University of Georgia Marine
Sciences Professor Samantha Joye told the American Association for the
Advancement of Science at their annual meeting that somehow the
methane breakdown, which skyrocketed to 60,000 times above normal
levels in the Gulf region now slowed down to just 30 times above
background levels – but not because the methane bubble was running
out.

Joye suggests another nutrient may have become a limiting factor to
the microbes.

Oxygen may be the limiting factor.

Bacteria require oxygen, Diatoms provide oxygen.
So causing Diatoms to bloom is the right solution.

regards

Bhaskar

On Jun 4, 12:52 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Here is the media report on GMEX methane breakdown which I 
 misquoted.http://www.bitsofscience.org/methane-breakdown-gulf-981/

 http://www.bitsofscience.org/methane-breakdown-gulf-981/This seems to be a
 nutrient collapse. Iron fertilization of spill areas should be SOP. IMHO.

 Thanks  

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Mineral Rain vs Biological Rain

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi All

I thought that clouds only formed due to mineral actions and
artificial rain by cloud seeding was
done by using chemicals like silver iodide.

A report on Bioprecipitation says that bacteria, diatoms and fungi too
can cause clouds and rain.

Can this lead to a biological SRM solution?

Fertilize atmosphere over oceans with Diatoms and Nutrients and cause
clouds to form and the residual diatoms and Nutrients fall into oceans
with the rain and continue to bloom.


http://www.livescience.com/14299-bacteria-create-rain-snow-hail.html

Surprising Find: Live Bacteria Help Create Rain, Snow  Hail

Living bacteria that get whipped up into the sky may be just the spark
needed for rain, snow and even hailstorms, research now finds.

Alexander Michaud of Montana State University in Bozeman, Mont., found
large amounts of bacteria at the centers of giant hailstones.

Traditionally, researchers have thought that minerals or other
particulates in clouds caused water droplets to glom together until
they were large enough to fall as raindrops, snowflakes and hail. The
new research shows that a large variety of bacteria, and even fungi,
diatoms and algae, persist in the clouds and can be used as
precipitation starters, a growing field of study called
bioprecipitation. (In order for snow, say, to fall from clouds,
particles around which ice crystals can form — called ice nuclei — are
needed.)

Minerals were thought to be the dominant ice nucleators in the
atmosphere, but they aren't nearly as active as biological particles,
said Brent Christner, a microbiologist studying bioprecipitation at
Louisiana State University who is presenting the work today (May 24)
at the General Meeting of the American Society for Microbiology in New
Orleans.

Bacterial beginnings

For minerals to form ice nuclei, water needs to be much colder than is
usually found in clouds, Christner told LiveScience. Bacteria and
other living particles that get swept up into the sky may serve as
alternative nucleators.

Michaud, also presenting at the conference, collected hailstones about
the size of golf balls (greater than 2 inches, or 5 centimeters, in
diameter) after a huge hailstorm hit Montana in June 2010. He
separated the hail into four layers, which are formed as the ice is
created and moves up and down through the clouds, accumulating layer
upon layer of ice. He found that bacteria levels were highest at the
core of the hail.

Bacteria have been found within the embryo, the first part of a
hailstone to develop. The embryo is a snapshot of what was involved
with the event that initiated growth of the hailstone, Michaud said
in a statement. There is growing evidence that these nuclei can be
bacteria or other biological particles.

By determining the temperature at which the hailstones formed, the
team found that these bacteria allowed the ice to form at warmer
temperatures than otherwise expected.

Importance of ice

Previously Christner's group found that the widely studied plant
pathogen Psuedomonas syringae plays an important role in snow
formation all over the world, including Antarctica, where there are
few plants. The pathogen is known to be very good at creating ice at
temperatures above the normal freezing point of water.

These bacteria are equipped with a special substance that binds water
molecules in an orderly arrangement, and in these proximities they can
more easily form ice particles. When on the ground, the bacteria use
this ice to damage plants, causing the plant cells to break apart and
allowing the bacteria to enter.

An organism that lives on a plant, where you want to be is back on
the ground on another plant. If you have the ability to produce
precipitation, fall down and land on a plant, it could be a cycle,
Christner told LiveScience. They could be using this protein as a way
to hitchhike on the water cycle.

Their presence on the ground, and in the clouds, could influence
weather conditions and cycles.


regards

Bhaskar

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Anthropocene

[M V Bhaskar]

Humans have been geoengineering the world on a massive scale since the
start of the Industrial Revolution, this is perhaps unintentional.

A interesting article from The Economist about Anthropcene.

http://www.economist.com/node/18741749?story_id=18741749fsrc=rss

The Anthropocene
A man-made world
Science is recognising humans as a geological force to be reckoned
with
May 26th 2011 | from the print edition

The majority is done on purpose, mostly to make fertilisers. This has
a variety of unwholesome consequences, most importantly the increasing
number of coastal “dead zones” caused by algal blooms feeding on
fertiliser-rich run-off waters.

About 40% of the nitrogen in the protein that humans eat today got
into that food by way of artificial fertiliser.

Preventing fertilizer from polluting water is the great challenge.

As much as 100 clean terawatts, compared to today’s dirty 15TW, is
not inconceivable for the 22nd century. That would mean humanity was
producing roughly as much useful energy as all the world’s
photosynthesis combined.

15 TW is about 15% of global photosynthesis.
So an increase in photosynthesis by 15% can take care of all CO2
emissions from the electricity generation.

They have a particular interest in the jumps in the level of
atmospheric oxygen seen about 2.4 billion years ago and 600m years
ago.

Diatoms are said to contribute about 20 to 25% of the Oxygen in the
atmosphere.
They evolved only 200 million years ago.
This does not seem to have resulted in a significant jump in Oxygen in
atmosphere.

Unfortunately the impact of photosynthesis on carbon in oceans is not
discussed in the article.

regards


Bhaskar

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Mid-Oceanic Diatom Entrapment System Technology.....MODEST

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi Michael

A few points about Diatoms.
Most diatoms are consumed by zooplankton and fish and do not
accumulate, unlike other phytoplankton.
That is why you SEE fewer Diatom blooms in photos.

Diatoms sink, other phytoplankton float.
This is another reason why we SEE less diatoms.

To answer the two points you raised -

First is their natural existence in the coastal areas of the ocean gyre that 
they will be farmed in.

Diatoms exist in all natural waters, they account for about 40 to 50%
of the oxygen and primary production in oceans.

Second is their ability to form mats.

As mentioned above they rarely form mats, most are consumed or the
dead diatoms sink.

Any attempt to 'farm' or grow diatoms to accumulate them will be very
expensive.

best regards

Bhaskar

On May 18, 2:54 am, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi All,

 Bhaskar has brought the use of diatoms up and I find the thought path
 interesting. I would like to start this thread off in an effort to keep the
 issue organized in one thread for easy reference and focused discussion on
 his suggestion/concept.

 The main benefits of diatoms are O2 production and CO2 sequestration.

 How can those benefits be practically exploited on a significant enough
 scale to impact Global Warming?

 What would be the environmental impact of large-scale use be?

 What environments can this biotic enhancement be practically carried out
 within?

 What type of diatoms can/should be used and in which environment?

 These were my first questions in trying to understand Bhaskar's ongoing
 effort to bring the use of diatoms up. If a focused attention can be
 produced through this dedicated thread, the issue may find the fullest
 evaluation this group can offer.

 Here is a link to the Google results on scholarly papers concerning diatom
 and CO2 transport to the ocean 
 floor.http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=Efficiency+of+the+CO2-concentrati...This
 is a repeat from my earlier post on the Lecture on Methane thread. I think
 it might help the effort if all relative links are made available here.

 Here is the Google search results on diatoms and O2 
 production.http://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diatom+and+oxygenhl=enas_sdt=0;...

 Here is the Google search results on diatom nutrient 
 uptakehttp://scholar.google.com/scholar?q=diatom+nutrient+uptake+ratehl=en...

 Here are the marine species lists that I am initially finding;

 http://www.marinespecies.org/aphia.php?p=taxdetailsid=156607http://university.uog.edu/botany/474/mar-fw_diatoms.htmlhttp://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online...http://www.microscopy-uk.org.uk/mag//artdec10/cuba-diatom.pdfhttp://www.jsrd.org/Vol%2010/Vol%2010%20Art9.pdf

 There are many more.

 I proposed the use of gyres of large-scale diatom farms to provide CO2 ocean
 sequestration, large area ocean surface cooling and possible pollution
 mitigation. However, I may not be the first to propose it and I would be
 interested in finding any previously published work. I try avoiding
 reinventing wheels when I can.

 That concept will initially take a survey of diatoms which have two basic
 attributes. First is their natural existence in the coastal areas of the
 ocean gyre that they will be farmed in. Second is their ability to form
 mats. There may be a combination of species which would act in a mutually
 supporting way to create prescribed mats. The hardware side of the
 concept will need to be focus upon biomemecry and utilization of
 available resources. The gyres have one resource which can be
 usedplastic!        

 I hope this thread starts a way to keep the many issues, that diatom use
 raises, in an easily referenced format.

 Thanks again for your patience.

 Michael

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Lecture on Methane Hydrates by Dr. Mariam Kastner

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi

Any mechanical device would be expensive and require maintenance, this
will limit the scale of deployment.

A more natural source of oxygen like Diatoms would be cheaper and
environmental friendly.

best regards

Bhaskar

On May 16, 3:07 pm, Michael Hayes voglerl...@gmail.com wrote:
 Hi All,

 I have pulled together a few Bubbler Buoy option.

 Here is an Advanced Anchoring and Mooring Study.

 http://www.oregonwave.org/wp-content/uploads/Anchor-and-Mooring-Study...

 http://www.oregonwave.org/wp-content/uploads/Anchor-and-Mooring-Study...This
 study opened up a few useful bubbler buoy design ideas. The first concept
 involves a modified Anaconda wave energy converter (Fig.5). I can see how
 this would give good vertical control separation from the floor. While under
 the ice (no waves),  captured methane would be used as the sole
 energy source . This concept could cover a good section of an area with
 minimal anchoring/mooring. Here is an animation of the 
 Anacondahttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VamSAbwgJKkfeature=related

 The principle modification would be the addition of a snorkel(s), bubbler
 gear and energy storage means. I do like this idea as it can be a modular
 system for ease of transport and expansion. The hydrosol injectors could act
 as a means for lateral movement to increase the hydrosol coverage area. A
 deflection of up to 45 degrees from the current flow may be possible. Fins
 could be used to assist this lateral movement.

 There is one anchor designs that stands out for use in a hydrate field. The
 the suction pile method (Pg 35). This would penetrate well as I believe most
 hydrate fields are an aggregate of materials. *This type of anchoring method
 also brings up the possibility of harvesting methane directly from the floor
 through the pile and using it on board the buoy via fuel cells*. I do like
 the possibility of using this type of gear as not only an anchor, but as a
 mast as well. This could help keep the mooring line from sweeping the
 floor

 Here is one off the shelf system that can be easily modified for immediate
 use for bubbler/observation 
 workhttp://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aX44qY560KYfeature=related

 This is a study on smart 
 buoys.http://www.cs.berkeley.edu/~kfall/unbuoy.pdf I would like to work 
 toward a
 smart Pico bubbler.

 Here are a few advanced concept which may be of some interest.

 I took up a short study a few years back on electroactive polymers (EAP)
 or artificial muscle. Here is the Wiki 
 linkhttp://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroactive_polymers

 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Electroactive_polymersThis type of polymer
 could find many uses within this project. Here is a clip of a configuration
 which could be used (at a much larger scale) as an autonomous methane bubble
 capture means.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=J2mE0tUk7vANR=1 Try to
 imagine what you viewed with a segmented ie. flexible Peltier cooler
 skeletal structure cooling the water. The methane fuel cell and subsystems
 would be central to the legs. A snorkel tube running to the surface
 with bubblers attached to a small surface buoy communications package would
 give us what we need.. I think we may be able to eventually design such a
 system that would actually seek out vents autonomously and take up residency
 over them. A *S*mart *PICO* with EAP/Peltier *S*kirt deployed down the
 mooring line looks good to me. *SPICOS *buoys could be produced and deployed
 in significant numbers, but I haven't looked at any cost figures. It won't
 be cheap.

 Carbon Nanotube muscle is also possibly available in the near term and here
 is a short lab 
 clip.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n-zXKrBoJGsfeature=relmfu           
 .
 This concept also allows for a movable swarm of bubblers (or other gear)
 to follow seasonal changes in the ocean environment. Sam posted a suggestion
 of using hydrosols along the interface between the Gulf Stream and the
 leading edge of the polar ice sheet to possibly insulate the leading edge
 through bright water use. A swarm of these autonomous bubblers could  follow
 the ice retreat and also be directed to the higher temperature areas through
 sat. communications.

 The last buoy concept I would like to introduce is a *Super SPICOS *buoy. It
 is the SPICOS merged with a super conductive version of this 
 design.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=phc9_h31JfE Superconducting Magnetic 
 Energy
 Storage (SMES) can be applied to a bubbler buoy as a way to store the
 potential electrical power generated through the methane capture. This
 eliminates the need for bulk gas storage, cools the surrounding waters and
 makes for a more efficient wave energy capture. A *Super SPICOS* can be
 moored to a suction piling along with the modified Anaconda. If stationed at
 a large methane vent, the energy transfer from both the methane/wave action
 to the cryogenic system, could produce significant local water cooling.

 These different buoy concepts are reasonable in that I am only 

[geo] Re: How would you allocate US$10 million per year to most reduce climate risk?

[M V Bhaskar]

I would allocate it to a Ocean Fertilization type of project but in
the Chesapeake Bay.

For $ 10 Million we can clean up the bay of excess nutrients and
increase the Dissolved Oxygen level for 1 to 2 months.

This will prove the impact of our fertilization process will have in
Oceans.

The carbon that is absorbed in the Bay would not be 'sequestered' but
the process that would take place in oceans due to our process would
be demonstrated.

Scientists working on Ocean Fertilization did lab trials and then
undertook ocean experiments, skipping the intermediate steps of lakes
and estuaries. This gap is to be filled in.

best regards

Bhaskar

On Apr 18, 8:08 pm, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 Folks,

 There is some discussion in DC about making some small amount of public
 funds available to support SRM and CDR research.

 In today's funding climate, it is much more likely that someone might be
 given authority to re-allocate existing budgets than that they would
 actually be given significantly more money for this effort. Thus, the modest
 scale.

 If you were doing strategic planning for a US federal agency, and you were
 told that you had a budget of $10 million per year and that you should
 maximize the amount of climate risk reduction obtainable with that $10
 million, what would you allocate it to and why?

 Best,

 Ken

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA
 +1 650 704 7212 
 kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab @kencaldeira

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: FW: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization

[M V Bhaskar]

Thank you

A very comprehensive and informative document.

I would like to comment as follows -

The break up of the source of estimated 38,000 Billion tons of Carbon
in the oceans is not discussed.
Obviously Phytoplankton dying and sinking would not have alone been
responsible for all the carbon in the oceans, so what are the other
processes involved?

Has over fishing slowed the Carbon cycle in the oceans?

The decimation of the whale population in the first half of the 20th
century may have decreased the recycling of Iron and thereby slowed
down the Diatom bloom and carbon sequestration, this and other similar
issues have not been discussed.

Pg 1
Because scientific studies to date have been short-term and of
relatively small scale, it is not yet known how iron-based ocean
fertilization might affect zooplankton, fish and seafloor biota...

Pg 8
As already indicated, fertilization experiments have been of
insufficient duration and spatial scale to reveal changes at higher
levels within the food chain. Thus any suggestions of either positive
or negative impacts on fish stocks remain speculative.

I agree that fertilization experiments should be conducted for a
longer duration to understand the impact on the food chain.

We have been fertilizing fresh water lakes with our Nano silica based
micro nutrient powder for past 5 years, with specific objective of
causing bloom of Diatoms. We have always got dominant bloom of Diatoms
and with very good results on Zooplankton, fish and control of
nuisance / harmful algae, obnoxious weeds and aquatic plants.

Pg 3

For fishery enhancement

Increases in ocean productivity following largescale ocean
fertilization might provide additional benefits from a human
perspective, since growth enhancement of fish stocks might result,
increasing the yield of exploitable fisheries. 

Our objective in use of the Nano Silica based Micro Nutrient was ONLY
to increase fisheries and we have always succeeded.

Pg 5, Box 2

Iron  in seawater is mostly in an insoluble form which precipitates
and sinks out of the surface ocean rapidly.

We have solved this problem, Iron and other metals in our product are
stable in water for a very long time.

Although Diatoms usually dominated species composition after iron
addition, ...

The CBD report on the 13 Ocean Fertilization states that only 5 of the
13 experiments produced a dominant bloom of Diatoms.

Pg 12

An additional factor, observed in other studies, was the rapid loss
(of up to 75%) of the added iron, by its precipitation and scavenging
onto particles before it could be utilized for phytoplankton growth.
Improved delivery mechanisms for iron, such as the use of chemical
complexing agents, could improve this efficiency, but with cost
implications.

We have used Nano Silica as the delivery vehicle to reduce loss and
improved efficiency.
Our process is cost effective for fisheries - use of Diatom Algae as a
source of food and oxygen,
so we believe that it would be cost effective for carbon sequestration
too.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net




On Jan 25, 10:31 am, Mike MacCracken mmacc...@comcast.net wrote:
 From: Henrik Enevoldsen [mailto:h.enevold...@bio.ku.dk]
 Sent: Tuesday, January 25, 2011 9:00 AM
 Subject: RE: A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization
 ANNOUNCEMENT (for wider distribution as appropriate):
 Dear friends,
 A Scientific Summary for Policymakers on Ocean Fertilization, commissioned
 by the Intergovernmental Oceanographic Commission of UNESCO and prepared
 with the assistance of the Surface Ocean Lower Atmosphere Study (SOLAS), is
 now available through online and in print. The Summary considers the
 practicalities, opportunities and threats associated with large-scale ocean
 fertilization.
 The Summary for Policymakers is available for download 
 athttp://unesdoc.unesco.org/images/0019/001906/190674e.pdf
 To request a print copy please contact Kathy Tedesco at IOC-UNESCO
 (k.tede...@unesco.org) or Emily Breviere at SOLAS (ebrevi...@ifm-geomar.de).

 Best regards,   Henrik EnevoldsenIntergovernmental Oceanographic Commission
 of UNESCO

  image.gif
 1KViewDownload

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

Re: IPCC on geo-engineering Re: [geo] geo eng and new Friends of the Earth EWNI report urges very deep and rapid emission cuts

[M V Bhaskar]

Dr Keith

Glad to know you are on the Organising committee for the IPCC WG
meetings in Peru.

IPCC website says -
Current discussions that suggest geoengineering as an option to
support climate mitigation efforts remain rather abstract and lack
comprehensive risk assessments that take into account possible adverse
impacts over short and longer time frames. Major uncertainties exist
regarding the effects of these techniques on the physical climate
system and on biogeochemical cycles, their possible impacts on human
and natural systems, and their effectiveness and costs. 

In the field of Ocean Fertilization we believe that we have addressed
many of the risks noted above.
We have been causing controlled blooms of Diatoms on a medium scale
for the past 5 years.
So the costs, benefits, consequences, etc., are know.

How can we put forth our views to the WG at Peru?

best regards

Bhaskar

On Jan 3, 6:33 pm, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote:
 I am on the organizing committee for the IPCC interworking group meeting on 
 geoengineering in Peru this summer.

 The possibility of a special report will no doubt be discussed at some length 
 at that meeting.

 My views are pretty well aligned with Ken's here. There are lots of summary 
 reports written in more in the works, what is lacking is sufficient serious 
 analysis of the various methods, their potential, risks and uncertainties.

 -D


-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Paper on CBD COP decision

[M V Bhaskar]

Diana

The 13 Ocean fertilization experiments since 1993 were undertaken
after laboratory research and trials.

So now Ocean fertilization experiments cannot go back to laboratory
experiments.
The size, duration and scope of the similar experiments in future has
to be increased not decreased.
Especially since none of the 13 experiments resulted in any adverse
outcomes.

best regards

Bhaskar

On Dec 8, 7:07 am, Masahiro Sugiyama s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jp
wrote:
 Dear Diana,

 Thank you very much for reviewing our paper thoroughly.
 We really appreciate it.  It is a working paper, and we
 will make efforts to fully reflect on your points when
 we revise it.

 I agree with you that some people are using the mantra
 of we need more research as a marketing tool.  This point
 was probably not well represented in our paper.

 Again many thanks for your comments.

 Best,
 Masa Sugiyama

 (2010/12/08 5:14), Diana Bronson wrote:







  The paper recently circulated by Sugiyama and Sugiyama of the Central 
  Research
  Institute of Electric Power Industry in Japan makes for interesting reading 
  but
  also warrants some points of clarification. While ETC Group agrees with some
  points made the paper, and we welcome independent assessments of the CBD 
  COP 10
  geoengineering decision, we offer the following comments on assertions made 
  in
  the paper that we disagree with.

  1. COP 10 delegates were not well informed about geoengineering and 
  negotiations
  were conducted in haste without proper scientific consideration (p. 1).

  _Response_: It is true that this is a new area of negotiation for diplomats,
  mainly because it is the first time substantial attention has been devoted 
  to
  geoengineering in a UN inter-governmental body. Geoengineering is a new 
  topic
  for most people. However, the topic did arise from the May 2010 meeting of 
  the
  scientific subsidiary body (SBSTTA) in Nairobi and given that the original
  language went to the COP in bracketed from, states did have time (6 months) 
  to
  prepare their positions for the COP in Nagoya. In fact, Slovenia first 
  raised
  geoengineering as far back as the 2007 SBSTTA in Paris! The language that 
  was
  adopted at this COP was based on the debates and language on ocean 
  fertilization
  from 2008. So delegates certainly did have time to prepare and ample warning
  that this was coming up.

  The precautionary approach adopted by the COP on geoengineering is indeed
  consistent with the need to reflect upon the topic in more depth before any
  real-world experimentation (in uncontrolled settings) with potential
  transboundary impacts or deployment can be contemplated. More in-depth
  scientific consideration is surely needed (and will be forthcoming). This
  decision simply ensures that geoengineering is not seen as a uniquely 
  scientific
  matter, but rather emphasizes questions of governance and social, 
  environmental
  and other impacts and inputs that ought to be considered.

  2. Definition and CCS issues (pp. 3, 8, 13 )

  _Response_: It is odd that the authors assert that no definition of
  geoengineering was agreed to at COP 10 and that geoengineering was 
  �treated as
  though [it was] a single monolithic technology� when clearly a tentative
  definition was adopted, was extensively debated and was agreed upon by the 
  (193)
  countries present and indeed is quoted on page 10. That definition in fact 
  is
  largely based on the Royal Society�s influentual conceptualization of
  geoengineering as encompassing two broad categories: SRM and CDR 
  technologies.
  The compromise definition, adopted in the footnote (to 8 (w)), applies only 
  for
  this COP and may be revised subsequently.

  The question of how to define geoengineering is a complex one, and is 
  clearly
  not yet settled practically, theoretically or legally. Some of the 
  complexities
  of this debate are highlighted in pages 4-7 of Geopiracy: The Case Against
  Geoengineering http://www.etcgroup.org/en/node/5217. Obviously many other
  things have been written as well. Whether or not what we normally 
  understand as
  CCS is included in CDR is open for debate -- and clearly concerned countries
  like Norway and Canada with substantial investments in CCS. I think that it 
  is
  understood by all sides in this debate that geoengineering is an umbrella 
  term
  for a large number of very different technologies and of course there will 
  be
  some different governance considerations for different ones (as well as some
  commonalities, like scale and intentionality for example).

  Finally, the authors mischaracterize the position of Bolivia by stating 
  Bolivia
  requested to clarify that excluding CCS cannot be interpreted as an 
  acceptance
  of geonegineering activities (p. 8).In fact, what Bolivia sought to 
  clarify,
  was that �The exclusion of carbon capture and storage from this 
  definition is
  not to be interpreted as an 

[geo] Re: Paper on CBD COP10 decision

[M V Bhaskar]

Dear Dr Sugiyama

Thank you.

A few comments on the report.

On Pg 5 Table 1 -
Proposed methods -  Fertilize the oceans with iron to enhance
photosynthesis, which drawsdown atmospheric CO2 (ocean fertilization).

Why restrict the issue to only iron?

A better wording would have been -

Oceans naturally sequester large amounts of CO2, methods to enhance
and supplement this natural sequestration.

Page 10

1. States are asked to ensure that no geoengineering activities that
may affect biodiversity take place.

It would have been good to add the work 'adversely' before affect.

Geoengineering that may benefit biodiversity is also possible.

Human intervention does not always have a negative impact on nature,
it may sometimes be beneficial.
I know that this is against the experience of the past 250 years and
is now difficult to believe.

Geoengineering is being interpreted as people vs nature.
This need not be so, it can well be people and nature living in
harmony.

best regards

Bhaskar



On Nov 30, 8:01 am, Masa Sugiyama s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jp wrote:
 Dear all,

 We just finished our new discussion paper on CBD COP10 geoengineeering
 decision.  You can download it from here.
 http://criepi.denken.or.jp/en/serc/research_re/10013.html
 (Excuse me for a duplicate posting, but as far as I remember, the
 membership
  differs between geoengineering and climate intervention google
 groups.
  Correct me if I'm wrong.)

 Comparing the decision with LC/LP decisions and other resolutions at
 CBD shows that the language was quite weak (i.e., no-binding
 guidance) from the outset, and got weaker when adopted.  The final
 language discourages deployment, while allowing for scientific
 research that satisfy conditions (to be clarified yet).  It turned
 out to be a reasonable outcome, we believe, but the negotiation
 process was not well informed and was precarious.  Inputs from
 scientific bodies like IPCC are vitally needed.

 Any comments are welcome.

 Best,
 Masa Sugiyama

 Interpretation of CBD COP10 decision on geoengineering
 Masahiro Sugiyama and Taishi Sugiyama
 SERC Discussion Paper 10013
 Date : 2010

 ABSTRACT
 The delegates at the tenth meeting of the Conference of the Parties
 (COP10) to the Convention on Biological Diversity (CBD) discussed
 geoengineering, the deliberate large-scale manipulation of the
 planetary environment to counteract anthropogenic climate change, in
 addition to main topics such as biodiversity conservation targets and
 access and benefit-sharing of genetic resources.
  The draft decision contained a language to preclude geoengineering
 including its research, although it was a non-binding guidance. The
 agreed decision added numerous qualifiers and is complicated. It
 requests countries that no climate-related geo-engineering activities
 that may affect biodiversity take place, in the absence of proper
 scientific knowledge and governance, while allowing for small scale
 scientific research studies --- in a controlled setting. The decision
 also gives a tentative definition of geoengineering.
  Climate geoengineering is intended to counteract global warming by
 either reflecting sunlight or removing carbon dioxide from the
 atmosphere. Although it is not an alternative to emissions reductions,
 scientists are paying increasing attention to this set of techniques
 because the slow progress of emissions reduction might lead to a
 possibility of dangerous climate change.
  At the COP10 in Nagoya, the delegates were not well informed about
 geoengineering, and negotiations were conducted in haste without
 proper scientific consideration.
  The following two points are particularly important with regard to
 the science of geoengineering: (1) There are two categories of
 geoengineering: solar radiation management (SRM) and carbon dioxide
 removal (CDR). The science and ecological impact vastly differ between
 the technologies, and it is difficult to impose a uniform regulation
 on geoengineering; (2) Owing to large uncertainties in the science of
 climate change, even a very stringent emissions reduction does not
 eliminate the risk of dangerous climate change. Emissions reductions
 would be too slow to counter it because of the inertia of the climate
 system. A blanket ban, as originally conceived, would not have been a
 wise option if one admitted a scenario of dangerous climate change.
 Viewed in this light, the agreed decision is a reasonable outcome,
 though the negotiation process was precarious.
  Geoengineering is likely to emerge as a crucial topic for
 environmental negotiations in the future. The Intergovernmental Panel
 on Climate Change is convening an expert meeting in June 2011. More
 efforts like this are necessary to better inform policymakers and
 citizens.

 --
 Masahiro Sugiyama
 Central Research Institute of Electric Power Industry
 Socio-Economic Research Center
 2-11-1 Iwadokita, Komae-shi, Tokyo 201-8511 Japan
 s-m...@criepi.denken.or.jp
 +81-3-3480-2111

-- 

[geo] Is photosynthesis promotion and water pumping Geoengineering

[M V Bhaskar]

Geoengineering is being defined as SRM and CCS.
Would afforestation of deserts also be Geoengineering?

Diana Bronson mentions in another post - 'Gates funding of
geoengineering research'

The real advance was the process to extract nitrogen gas from the air
and turn it into the nitrogen
compounds that plants can use.

Nitrogen is stable as a gas and dissolves in water.
Providing it as a solid fertilizer in powder / granule form was a
revolutionary development.

Would any other invention that provides other inputs required by
plants and trees in a new form qualify as a geoengineering solution.
Plants and trees also require water and micro nutrients.

If forests are to be grown in deserts, all inputs required have to be
provided - Water, Nutrients, Micro nutrients, etc.
Nutrients / Fertilizers are manufactured in factories and have been
available for about 100 years - Urea, Phosphate and Potash.

Is there any scope for improvement in water pumping technology to pump
water in closed pipes, 100s of Kms into the middle of deserts?
Traditional open irrigation canals would result in huge evaporation
losses so pipes would be necessary.

Are the pumps currently being used suited for this type of pumping?
Traditional pumps are perhaps more suited to 'lift' water to great
heights (Vertical pumping) and not to pump large quantity over long
distances (Horizontal pumping).

Would desalination technology be a geoengineering solution?
Solar, Wind and Wave energy is available on sea shores.
Can these be used to desalinate large quantities of water and then
pump this inland into deserts?

Plants and trees require micro nutrients.
What is the best source of micro nutrients?
Would advances in technology for provision of micro nutrients be
comparable to the advances in Nitrogen and Phosphorus fertilizers?

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: Nathan Myhrvold argues for geoengineering

[M V Bhaskar]

David

A couple of papers that have studied the Si : N ratio and related
issues in the Gulf of Mexico are -

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?artid=23704
Officer and Rhyther (22) suggested that a shift in the Si:N atomic
ratio from above 1:1 to below 1:1 would have two effects: altering the
marine food web by reducing the diatom-to-zooplankton-to-higher
trophic level food web, and increasing the proportion of flagellated
algae, including those that produce harmful algal blooms.

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v368/n6472/abs/368619a0.html
The increases were substantial by 1980, by which time riverine
nitrogen loading had doubled relative to the beginning of the century,
even though the silica loading had declined by 50% over the same
period. Thus changes in river-borne nutrient loadings can modify
coastal food webs and affect the amount and distribution of oxygen in
bottom waters on the scale of continental shelves.

These indicate that reduction in silica : nitrogen ratio results in
lower diatom population and that this has a negative impact on the
ocean ecology.
The development of the Gulf of Mexico dead zone and change in Si : N
ratio over the past 50 years seem to be correlated.

The point we are trying to make is, Is the reverse true?
If Diatom population is increased will the tropic status of the water
change for the better?
No one seems to have studied this.

A blog post about dams - silica - diatoms - red tides is available at
http://friendsofsebago.blogspot.com/2009/12/silica-depletion-and-lake-regulation.html

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net

On Dec 29, 10:07 pm, David Schnare dwschn...@gmail.com wrote:
 B.

 Can you identify some papers on use of diatom algae on dead zones (fresh and
 salt water)?

 Thanks,
 d.

 On Tue, Dec 29, 2009 at 5:37 AM, M V Bhaskar bhaskarmv...@gmail.com wrote:



  We have been using Diatom algae to increase dissolved oxygen levels in
  fresh water lakes.
  Our observation is that Cyanobacteria decrease dissolved oxygen level
  due to accumulation and decomposition and Diatoms increase dissolved
  oxygen levels since they do not accumulate, since they are consumed by
  zooplankton.
  The same would hold true even in oceans - both coastal waters and deep
  sea.
  We are sure that dead zones in coastal waters can be solved by causing
  Diatom Algae bloom in the dead zones.

  In deep seas dead cyanobacteria may decompose near the surface and
  dead diatoms may sink deep.
  Discussing about 'Phytoplankton' in connection with ocean
  fertilization is inadequate.
  Different types of phytoplankton may cause diametrically opposite
  effects.

  best regards

  Bhaskar
 www.kadambari.net

  On Dec 29, 11:11 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
  wrote:
    Unless you do some pretty fancy things with nutrient ratios in sinking
   organic matter, increasing ocean vertical mixing is not an efficient way
  to
   store carbon but is an efficient way to store heat.

   A potential co-benefit is a likely increase in marine productivity.

   That said, this would involve perturbing marine ecosystems potentially on
  a
   huge scale and would run counter to the goal, which many of us share, of
   trying to preserve natural marine ecosystems to the greatest extent
   possible.

   I do not think anoxia is a big issue as essentially you would be creating
  an
   artificial upwelling/downwelling zone and possible environmental
  downsides
   (e.g., anoxic regions) could be monitored for and act as a limit on scale
  of
   deployment. In fact, one possible application of vertical pumps in the
  ocean
   could be to bring oxygen into anoxic dead zones.

   *As with many interventions in the Earth system, the interesting cases
  are
   at the leading edge of the slippery slope:
   *
   As Behrenfeld and others have shown, warming in the tropics has led to
   increased stratification and thus a decrease of nutrient transport into
  the
   euphotic zone, with concomitant decreases in marine photosynthetic
  activity.
   One could imagine a case where ocean vertical mixing was engineered
  simply
   to bring local sea surface temperatures and vertical mixing rates closer
  to
   the* status quo ante *-- ie, the main goal in this case would be to
  counter
   direct impacts of global warming on a local marine environment.

   If you could show that you are countering some effects of global warming
   locally and thus helping to preserve a natural marine environment, one
  might
   consider this a good thing even if one feared the slippery slope towards
   using the marine environment to store heat that would otherwise damage
  land
   ecosystems (and human systems).

   

   *By way of disclosure: I am listed as a co-inventor on several patent
   applications related to vertical pumps in the ocean, but have stated that
  I
   will donate to non-profit charities and NGOs any revenues that accrue to
  me
   from application of these patents

[geo] Re: Nature: Planning for Plan B

[M V Bhaskar]

Oppenheimer says. “If you reduce emissions, you're moving back along
the limb you walked out on, but with geoengineering, you're not.”

This is a misconception.
If people just reduce consumption of electricity, petrol and coal,
this would be true.
This is unlikely to happen.

What is most likely is substitution -
 of electricity from Coal fired plants with electricity from other
sources,
 of petrol and diesel vehicles with electric vehicles, etc.

So many new technologies will be put in place to generate electricity
from renewable sources and manufacture better batteries, etc.
These new technologies will bring in a new set of problems - safety of
Nuclear power plants, impact of large number of wind mills, tidal
power plants, disposal of solar panels, batteries, etc.
So emission reduction too will result in Geoengineering but in an
indirect and unintentional manner, this may be more difficult to
control than direct Geoengineering.

If all the cars in the world were to be replaced with horse drawn
carts. How many horses would be needed? How much grass and grain would
they consume?
If all petrol and diesel cars are replaced with electric cars. How
many batteries would be required? How would they be disposed off?

As long as consumption is high pollution will continue in one form or
other.
Any large scale consumption is geoengineering in one form or other.

best regards

Bhaskar


On Dec 21, 7:43 pm, Dan Whaley dan.wha...@gmail.com wrote:
 http://www.nature.com/climate/2010/1001/full/climate.2010.135.html

 Feature
 Nature Reports Climate Change
 Published online: 17 December 2009 | doi:10.1038/climate.2010.135
 Planning for plan B
 Controlling the climate with technology was once the stuff of science
 fiction. But with tests already underway, there's an urgent need for
 global governance of geoengineering. Mason Inman reports.

 Victor Smetacek and colleagues faced fierce opposition to their
 experiment on ocean ecosystems in January, owing to its possible
 implications for climate control.

 When Victor Smetacek and his colleagues cruised to the Southern Ocean
 in January 2009, they hoped to launch straight into pouring ten tons
 of iron sulphate into the waters below. Instead they spent days on
 board cranking out a risk assessment of their experiment, making the
 case that their plans were legal.

 This kind of experiment had been done a dozen times before with little
 fanfare. The scientists were mainly interested in understanding iron's
 role in ocean ecosystems. But because their results would also be
 crucial for testing the feasibility of a particular plan to cool the
 climate, fierce opposition met the experiment by Smetacek — an
 oceanographer from the Alfred Wegener Institute for Polar and Marine
 Research in Bremerhaven, Germany — and his Indian collaborators.
 Infusing the ocean with iron could stimulate the growth of plankton
 blooms, which theoretically would draw carbon down into the deep sea,
 keeping it out of the atmosphere for hundreds or even thousands of
 years.

 By early 2009 such 'geoengineering' schemes had become the subject of
 serious scientific discussion. With emissions still rising, scientists
 had started to warn that deliberate climate control might be a
 necessary last-ditch attempt to curb warming and its deleterious
 impacts. “There's a sense that the world is getting out of control,”
 says Michael Oppenheimer, a geoscientist and climate policy expert at
 Princeton University in New Jersey. “That's what's led some scientists
 to refocus on geoengineering.”

 Early research shows that various schemes such as pumping sulphate
 aerosols into the sky or spraying saltwater above the oceans could, in
 theory at least, cool the planet — some perhaps by a few degrees or
 more. But research also suggests that there could be unintended — and
 ugly — consequences, such as widespread drought and substantial ozone
 depletion1, 2. Added to those concerns are the ethics of intentionally
 interfering with the climate, creating a legislative nightmare.
 “Geoengineering is the most serious governance concern that we're
 going to be facing in the next couple of decades,” argues Maria
 Ivanova, director of Yale University's Global Environmental Governance
 Project. “It's really about planetary survival.”

 Yet there have been no laws in place specifically aimed at regulating
 geoengineering, precisely because there has been no need. The science
 community's growing interest in more research into potential
 approaches, however, has led to fears that experiments could easily
 get ahead of efforts to regulate them. Such was the concern of those
 opposed to Smetacek's plans.

 Back in 2008 the project, named Lohafex, had been given the green
 light from the London Convention, which governs dumping in the open
 ocean. The Convention opened a loophole specifically to allow ocean-
 fertilization experiments. But as Smetacek and colleagues set sail,
 the UN Convention on Biological Diversity, the 

[geo] Re: containing and flaring methane - 2 ideas

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi

http://www.nature.com/climate/2009/0904/full/climate.2009.24.html
Both here and on land, permafrost stores vast quantities of carbon
that could be converted to methane.

It appears that Methane is not stored in the arctic.
Carbon deposits are stored and these decompose anaerobically and
release methane.
So the best solution is to ensure that the carbon that thaws due to
global warming decomposes under aerobic conditions.

This can be achieved by using Ocean Fertilization and causing a bloom
of Diatom Algae.
The diatoms would provide the oxygen required by aerobic bacteria and
these would decompose the carbon deposits producing only CO2 and no
Methane or H2S.

The oxygen output of Diatoms may be more than the oxygen consumed by
aerobic bacteria, so there would be a net increase in Oxygen and
decrease in CO2.
We have been using this concept on a small scale in fresh water lakes
for past 5 years, we have not measured the Methane but have recorded
the increase in Dissolved Oxygen level of water and stopping of H2S
emissions (the rotten egg smell stops).

The diatoms get consumed by fish, so the cost of fertilization would
be recovered from larger fish catch.
So there may be no net cost or only a small cost.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net

On Dec 16, 3:20 am, Neil Farbstein pro...@att.net wrote:
 Two great ideas! What percentage of methane comes off  arctic lakes?
 Weighted canisters filled with charcoal can absorb methane without
 releasing carbon dust. It's probably expensive but if titanium dioxide
 nanoparticles are linked to charcoal particles, they will reflect
 sunlight and adsorb methane. There's a few hundred places in the ocean
 off the coast of Siberia where the water is saturated with methane
 from methane hydrates on the shallow ocean bottom. Heat from
 greenhouse warming is causing them to release methane that's bubbling
 to the surface. I talked about using special robot ships with flare
 guns to ignite the methane bubbling up to the surface; in other
 posts.  I bet it will make a dent in  total greenhouse warming.

 On Dec 15, 4:50 pm, Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com wrote:



  1) My understanding is that much of the methane released from the Arctic is
  released from lakes.  Therefore, covering the lakes should be sufficient to
  control the release of much of this methane.  One simple way of doing this
  is by the use of non-biodegradable foaming agents.  A small amount could be
  added to the shallower lakes, and this should enable a methane-rich foam to
  form on top of the lake, much like the head on a pint of lager.  This would
  be flammable (I think), so firing a flare at the lake should enable the
  conversion of the very dangerous methane to less dangerous CO2.  This would
  come at the price of much of the marine ecosystem, I fear.  However, it
  should be cheap, simple and reversible.  If necessary, an oily foaming agent
  could be used on deeper lakes.  It would float on the surface, removing the
  need to contaminate the whole lake.  It would, however, cut off the oxygen
  supply to the lake's depths, and thus tend to create further methane by
  forcing anaerobic respiration to dominate.

  2) If methane concentrations exist over and close to land, it may be
  possible to ignite them using infra-red laser pulses from planes.  This has
  the advantage of not needing the delivery of a physical item to trigger
  combustion.  It doesn't immediately strike me as particularly practical, but
  a small, laser-induced spark from vegetation or rock might be just enough to
  set fire to some methane/air mix.

  A

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.

[geo] Re: scale, scope, structure

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi All

A paper on the subject of which type of Phytoplankton contributes more
to DMS -

Deep Sea Research Part I: Oceanographic Research Papers
Volume 42, Issue 6, June 1995, Pages 873-892
Relationship between dimethylsulfide and phytoplankton pigment
concentrations in the Ross Sea, Antarctica
Giacomo R. DiTullio* and Walker O. Smith Jr.

DMS:chl a ratios (58-78 nmol μg-1) were significantly higher in
waters dominated by Phaeocystis antarctica compared to diatom-
dominated waters (2-12 nmol μg-1).

link to abstract -
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science?_ob=ArticleURL_udi=B6VGB-3YS8NFB-27_user=10_rdoc=1_fmt=_orig=search_sort=d_docanchor=view=c_acct=C50221_version=1_urlVersion=0_userid=10md5=0d92684f454d965237bf4e4fbfd6bdef

It appears that Diatoms contribute less to DMS than other
phytoplankton.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net

On Nov 28, 11:59 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 Oliver,

 When you write OIF will never worked based on a severe increased in albedo
 do you mean OIF will never work as a carbon capture and storage option
 because the resulting severe increase in albedo would overcool the
 environment?

 Best,

 Ken

 PS. It is usually helpful to point people to your relevant papers when they
 ask.

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

 kcalde...@ciw.edu; 
 kcalde...@stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
 +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968



 On Fri, Nov 27, 2009 at 7:58 PM, Oliver Wingenter oli...@nmt.edu wrote:
  Dear Dan,

  The literature is quit rich in regards to DMS and albedo.  I suggest you
  hire a student that has access to the literature and direct them to get
  the knowledge you need.

  Sincerely,

  Oliver Wingenter

  PS. However, I can write that OIF will never worked based on a severe
  increased in albedo based on our research.  As a scientist, or
  investment recruiter, I would think you would have wanted to know this
  in 2004 when we first alluded to this in our PNAS paper.

  Dan Whaley wrote:
   Great... so what seems to be the problem?

   Can you please attach your papers?

   D

   On 11/26/2009 8:44 AM, Oliver Wingenter wrote:
   Dear Dan,

   It seems you have not read our Atmospheric Environment papers or our
   PNAS paper.  We already are advocating enhancing iron on a very
   limited basis (~ 2%) for cloud brightening.  What we mean by this is,
   all around the Southern Ocean several strips a few km wide will be
   enhanced with a nanomolar of iron.

   Sincerely,

   Oliver Wingenter

   Dan Whaley wrote:

   Oliver

   Really surprised by your comments, and by your unwillingness to
   engage in detail.  i asked for the paper that you feel covers these
   points in detail.  i also, again, would respectfully ask that if you
   have papers on DMS that Kelly and I should be aware of, that you
   provide them.  I asked about 6 months ago and, you said to wait...
   you were rethinking some things.

   Do you feel the need to have a public contest about this?  can't we
   all get along?

   Also-- i have nowhere advocated for Full scale fertilization of the
   Southern Ocean.  If you can locate this-- please provide.   I am
   advocating for research-- at somewhat larger scales-- to get data.
   Do you oppose this?

   Dan

   On Nov 26, 9:30 am, Dan Whaleydan.wha...@gmail.com  wrote:

   What is it that I don't get?  At the risk of repeating myself:

   The idea that any of these geoengineering techniques would get
   globally
   deployed immediately seems impossible to imagine.  We have always
   assumed that one would scale up gradually.  Large, long time series
   research efforts in more and more places in the oceans, etc.  So---
   wouldn't you be able to measure or model any cooling effect long
   before it became 'abrupt and severe'. 

   If I simply follow your logic, then why do you need to go to full
   scale if there is substantial cooling at an intermediary level?

   And, if you really feel like this is an effective way to provide
   cooling, then why aren't you advocating for more research here instead
   of talking about ponzi schemes.

   D

   On Nov 26, 8:22 am, Oliver Wingenteroli...@nmt.edu  wrote:

   Dear Dan,

   You and other still don't get it.  Full scale fertilization of the
   Southern Ocean will lead to extraordinary amounts of DMS which will
   oxidize to sulfate aerosol and massive and abrupt cooling.  It is that
   simple.

   Sincerely,

   Oliver Wingenter

   Dan Whaley wrote:

   Oliver,

   I know you've read the recent papers re a next generation of
   projects.  (Buesseler, et al; Watson, et al; Lampitt, et al;
   Smetacek
   and Naqvi, etc.)  Clearly some persons feel there are still questions
   worth asking.  There are others (Chisholm, Cullen, yourself, etc.)
   that do not.  It's great that we have a big world to accommodate
   

[geo] Re: scale, scope, emphasis, and structure of research programs (or program)

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi

 Does anybody else want to weigh in on scale, scope, emphasis, and structure
 of climate intervention research programs (or program)?

I would like to elaborate on the use of biological organism and
chemical engineering methods to stimulate biological organism growth.

 A.1. Approaches that involve biological organisms to remove greenhouse gases
 from the atmosphere

 A.2. Approaches that use chemical engineering methods to remove greenhouse
 gases from the atmosphere

I had posted earlier about algae constituting about 0.5% of the global
biomass (would like to know the absolute numbers)
contributing to 40% of CO2 removal.
So would doubling of the algal biomass from 0.5% to 1% result in
removal of an extra 40% of CO2 emissions.
If so this would be the best Geoengineering solution, since the
input / output ratios is very favorable.

There are HNLC areas in oceans - High Nutrient Low Chlorophyll.
In coast waters and inland waters there are Harmful Algal blooms -
i.e., High Nutrient High Chlorophyll areas.
Both are not desirable.
The algal blooms in coastal waters may in fact be contributing to
Global Warming due to higher emission of CO2 and Methane.

Therefore if algal biomass is to be increased, it has to be done in a
very carefully targeted manner.
The flow of nutrients - Nitrogen and Phosphorus into water has been
quite unregulated.
This has to be compensated by addition of micro nutrients into water.

The solution I have posted about earlier - use of a nano micro
nutrient powder aims at producing the maximum benefit with minimum
intervention.

This approach provides micro nutrients in nano size particles to the
most useful group of micro algae - Diatoms and a small increase in the
micro algae gives immense benefits.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net


On Nov 24, 11:24 pm, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 Folks,

 I think we are coming to a point where there is near-consensus that we need
 research into climate intervention.

 However, I think there are very real differences over the scale, scope,
 emphasis, and structure of a proposed research program (or programs).

 Furthermore, there has been almost no discussion on the criteria by which
 program areas,or proposed activities within those program areas, would be
 prioritized.

 I would like to open this discussion:

 

 With regard to structure, I would suggest that there are several independent
 or quasi-independent research programs:

 A. Approaches to remove carbon dioxide (and perhaps other radiatively active
 gases) from the atmosphere (i.e., Carbon Dioxide Removal methods)

 A.1. Approaches that involve biological organisms to remove greenhouse gases
 from the atmosphere

 A.2. Approaches that use chemical engineering methods to remove greenhouse
 gases from the atmosphere

 B. Approaches to directly intervene in Earth's energy flows or storage that
 do not work primarily through changing greenhouse gas concentrations (i.e.,
 Solar Radiation Management methods)

 

 Program segments A and B are organized around tools that can be used to
 address problems. One could imagine another program element that is
 organized around assessing potential threats and possible responses:

 C. Threat and response assessment

 C.1. Ice sheet stability

 C.2. Permafrost methane degassing

 C.3. Changes in weather patterns that might disrupt agricultural
 productivity

 C.4. etc

 

 I see little reason to link A, B, and C closely together and think they
 should be independent (or largely independent) programs. It is not clear
 that A.1 needs to be closely linked to A.2.

 ===

 Regarding criteria for funding proposals or program elements within A, B,
 and C, some initial comments:

 I think the criteria for funding under program element A (carbon dioxide
 removal and related approaches) should center on scalability, cost, and
 environmental consequences.

 I think the criteria for funding under program element B (solar radiation
 management and related approaches) should center on scalability, rapidity of
 possible deployment, affordability, and environmental consequences.

 I distinguish *cost *from *affordability *in that program elements A will,
 at least in the near term, compete with emissions avoidance, thus marginal
 cost is critical. However, program elements B might be used in an emergency
 situation where cost is secondary and, if it works, people might be in a bad
 enough situation that they might be willing to spend a large fraction of GDP
 on deployment.

 ==

 Does anybody else want to weigh in on scale, scope, emphasis, and structure
 of climate intervention research programs (or program)?

 ==

 Best,

 Ken

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

 kcalde...@ciw.edu; 
 

[geo] Re: House Science and Technology Committee streaming video

[M V Bhaskar]

Another possible answer is that the farmer in Nebraska is as much
responsible for Global warming as a coal fired power plant or a oil
refinery.
Problems created by construction of dams across rivers and use of
fertilizers contributes to global warming.
Dams reduce flow of silt into the oceans and irrigation and more
farming increase the flow of Nitrogen and Phosphorus.
The combined effect of this is the increase in harmful algal blooms in
rivers, lakes and coastal waters.

Phytoplankton are supposed to be major contributors of Oxygen and
hence absorbers of CO2, but the increasing number of Fish Kills in
fresh waters and Dead Zones in estuaries and oceans is an indicator
that blooms of phytoplankton is actually reducing oxygen and
increasing CO2 and perhaps increasing methane emissions as well.

Why are the number of Dead Zones increasing and what is the impact of
these on Global Warming.

http://www.earth-stream.com/outpage.php?s=18id=188819

  The dead zone in the Gulf of Mexico is one example. Nitrogen-
based fertilizers make their way from Iowa [Nebraska?] cornfields to
the Mississippi River, where
they are transported to the Gulf of Mexico. Once deposited in the
Gulf, nitrogen stimulates algal blooms.


--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineer...@googlegroups.com.
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=.

[geo] Re: ERL papers on line

[M V Bhaskar]

Dr Keith

We would like to suggest Diatom Algae as the best geoengineering
solution.
We have been using Diatom Algae to solve various problems in the past
5 years.
Diatom Algae are the most useful of all Phytoplankton and the least
problematic.
In fresh water lakes and rivers they increase Dissolved Oxygen level
and provide food for fish.
In Oceans they could directly sequester huge amounts of CO2 on the
ocean bed and in the bones of fish.
Ocean fertilization has been discussed and experimented with over the
past 2 decades.
An excellent summary of the 12 expeditions of Ocean Iron Fertilization
is available at - 
www.cbd.int/marine/doc/scientific-synthesis-marine-peerreview-en.doc
This is a draft paper.

All the expeditions have been lacking in one aspect, they have not
targeted any specific group of Algae and instead have targeted all
Phytoplankton.
Targeting Diatom Algae will give the best results.
Mr T Sampath Kumar worked on a means of causing a bloom of Diatoms for
10 years from 1994 to 2004 and perfected a solution to achieve this -
 a nano silica based powder that contains all the micro nutrients
required by Diatom Algae.
This has been used in aquaculture ponds and lakes for past 5 years and
we are now sure of the performance and that there are no side effects
or other problems.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net
www.nualgi.com/new



On Oct 30, 10:48 pm, David Keith ke...@ucalgary.ca wrote:
 Folks,

 There is a set of papers on geoengineering on line at Environmental
 Research Letters. Ken Caldeira and I served as editors of this special
 issue. More papers and a editorial will be added later.

 Cheers,

 David

 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045101

 Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate
 System

 2009 Environ. Res. Lett. 4 045101   doi: 10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101
 http://dx.doi.org/10.1088/1748-9326/4/4/045101    
 http://www.iop.org/EJ/help/-topic=abstract/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/04510
 1

 Geoengineering techniques for countering climate change have been
 receiving much press recently as a `Plan B' if a global deal to tackle
 climate change is not agreed at the COP15 negotiations in Copenhagen
 this December. However, the field is controversial as the methods may
 have unforeseen consequences, potentially making temperatures rise in
 some regions or reducing rainfall, and many aspects remain
 under-researched.

 This focus issue of Environmental Research Letters is a collection of
 research articles, invited by David Keith, University of Calgary, and
 Ken Caldeira, Carnegie Institution, that present and evaluate different
 methods for engineering the Earth's climate. Not only do the letters in
 this issue highlight various methods of climate engineering but they
 also detail the arguments for and against climate engineering as a
 concept.

 Further reading
 Focus on Geoengineering 
 athttp://environmentalresearchweb.org/cws/subject/tag=geoengineering
 IOP Conference Series: Earth and Environmental Science is an open-access
 proceedings service available atwww.iop.org/EJ/journal/ees

 Focus on Climate Engineering: Intentional Intervention in the Climate
 System Contents

 Modification of cirrus clouds to reduce global warming
 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045102  
 David L Mitchell and William Finnegan

 Climate engineering and the risk of rapid climate change
 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045103  
 Andrew Ross and H Damon Matthews

 Researching geoengineering: should not or could not?
 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045104  
 Martin Bunzl

 Of mongooses and mitigation: ecological analogues to geoengineering
 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045105  
 H Damon Matthews and Sarah E Turner

 Toward ethical norms and institutions for climate engineering research
 http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045106  
 David R Morrow, Robert E Kopp and Michael Oppenheimer

 On the possible use of geoengineering to moderate specific climate
 change impacts http://www.iop.org/EJ/abstract/1748-9326/4/4/045107  
 Michael C MacCracken

  image001.gif
  1KViewDownload

--~--~-~--~~~---~--~~
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
geoengineering group.
To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to 
geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com
For more options, visit this group at 
http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en
-~--~~~~--~~--~--~---

[geo] Re: I am Planning A New Geoengineering Foundation

[M V Bhaskar]

Interesting discussion about money, so here is my 2 cents worth :) -

I have posted about Diatom Algae and Nualgi yesterday and day before,
so I will not repeat the contents.
Nualgi can be used on any scale and is profitable from day 1.
The profits can be used for research into Geoengineering.

Nualgi is invented, patented, tried and tested, certified, production
capacity is in place, etc.
We are just seeking support to answer the usual questions people have
about any new technology and to meet working capital and marketing
expenditure requirements.
Samples of Nualgi are already available with a few people in US and 11
other countries.
Inventor is visiting US from Nov 24 th to Dec 24th, and anyone
interested can meet him, he will be in TN, CA and AZ.

So if anyone is interested in a very serious and profitable solution
to air and water pollution please do contact me.

best regards

Bhaskar
www.kadambari.net
www.nualgi.com/new

On Nov 1, 5:06 pm, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
wrote:
 Andrew Lockley andrew.lock...@gmail.com: *I gave up on my efforts to start
 such an organisation when Ken spoke out against it on this list.
 *
 I'm not even aware of having spoken out against the idea of an organization.

 There are many possible organizations that can and will (and some probably
 should) develop around this issue, ranging from professional service
 organizations to political advocacy organizations.

 I am all for letting 1000 flowers bloom.

 We should just not fool ourselves into thinking that there will be one
 organization to fit all needs, or that there is a broad consensus on issues
 across this entire distribution list.

 The key to success is to add value, to provide a service, to fill a need. If
 someone starts doing something that others perceive as valuable, and it is
 done in an open, thoughtful, and inclusive way, it will attract other
 people.

 Please do not take anything I said to inhibit you from attempting to do
 something you perceive as valuable.

 ___
 Ken Caldeira

 Carnegie Institution Dept of Global Ecology
 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA

 kcalde...@ciw.edu; 
 kcalde...@stanford.eduhttp://dge.stanford.edu/DGE/CIWDGE/labs/caldeiralab
 +1 650 704 7212; fax: +1 650 462 5968

 On Sun, Nov 1, 2009 at 3:56 AM, Andrew Lockley 
 andrew.lock...@gmail.comwrote:



  The main role of a geoeng institute would not be to disseminate information
  - that's very easy.  The main role is to give people something to belong to.
   This is far harder, as people can be picky, (not to mention lazy or tribal)
  with their memberships.  The last thing we want is to start an organisation
  which splits the nascent geoeng community.

  I gave up on my efforts to start such an organisation when Ken spoke out
  against it on this list.  I sought to unite, not divide - and when that
  wasn't possible I backed down.

  A

  2009/10/26 Neil Farbstein pro...@worldnet.att.net

  Thanks for all your suggestions. I've been too busy writing a funding
  request to answer everybody. My concept for the foundation would be to
  fund research into methods of modifying the climate to mitigate the
  greenhouse effect. We would fund efforts in house, and we would also
  fund others doing meritorious research. Most of that research will be
  theoretical and some will be real world tests like the groups that
  fertilized the oceans with iron. We would also act as a clearinghouse
  to disseminate information.

  On Oct 24, 11:35 am, Ken Caldeira kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu
  wrote:
   I don't think money really is the issue.

   One way to start is by developing a good newsletter.

   If someone wanted to take the time to put out a quarterly (or monthly)
   newsletter, summarizing in a balanced way recent developments, with
  pointers
   to recently published literature, worthwhile popular press accounts, and
  so
   on, it would be good and helpful. The newsletter could take the form of
  a
   pdf and web site. (It could be more or less a monthly or quarterly
   distillation of the best of what appears on this email group.)

   I think the key is that it would be a true service effort and would be
   undermined if it turned into a soapbox for the newsletter editor to
  opine on
   everything.

   So, money is an issue, but doing this is mostly time -- and the key is
  to
   find somebody who has the time, ability, motivation and emotional
  balance
   necessary to undertake such a venture.

   It could even start as a monthly email to this group summarizing the
  most
   important things said here in the previous month, with pointers back to
  the
   original discussion. I think there are a growing number of people who
  would
   like to follow developments but do not have the time to wade through
  every
   email on this largely unedited email group. If well done, such an effort
   could be a real service to many people.

   

[geo] Re: The Royal Society: Geoengineering: a brave new world? 19 January 2010

[M V Bhaskar]

Hi Everyone

I joined this group today and this is my first post.

We are working on a very specific solution of using Diatom Algae to
solve many problems.

I have been reading about the issue of Ocean Fertilization for the
past 1 year and find that there is some ambiguity in the literature.
The intention seems to be to cause bloom of Diatom Algae but the word
phytoplankton is used more often.
While Diatoms are phytoplankton, there are many other phytoplankton
other than diatoms.
The latest iron fertilization experiment - LOHAFEX is considered a
failure because it could not cause a bloom of Diatoms using Iron
Sulphate.

The post below says -
fertilising the oceans with nutrients in order to produce more phytoplankton 
to soak up atmospheric carbon dioxide.

We are being more focussed by proposing the use of silica and micro
nutrients all in nano size to cause a bloom of Diatom Algae.
Our product is patented in US, # 7585898, Composition for growth of
Diatom Algae, Mr. Thothathri Sampath Kumar, Bangalore, India.
http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO1Sect2=HITOFFd=PALLp=1u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsrchnum.htmr=1f=Gl=50s1=7585898.PN.OS=PN/7585898RS=PN/7585898
Nualgi contains Silica and all the micro nutrients required by Diatom
Algae - Iron, Manganese, Zinc, Cobalt, Molybdenum, Sulfur, Calcium,
Boron, Potassium, Magnesium, Chlorine. The powder is stable in water
for a long time and the nano particles mix and spread out into water
very easily.
Thus Nualgi is a very good substitute for simple Hematite ore or Iron
sulphate thats been used in the Ocean Iron Fertilization experiments
till date.

Diatoms not only absorb CO2, they also consume nutrients - Nitrogen
and phosphorus, increase Dissolved Oxygen in water and are the natural
food for fish.
Therefore a controlled and steady bloom of Diatoms can be used to
solve many problems - low DO level in water, low DO level causes fish
kills in small water bodies and dead zones in oceans. In fact low DO
level is caused by other Phytoplankton - Cyanobacteria (Blue Green
Algae) and Dinoflagallates, when they crash. A steady bloom of Diatoms
can prevent the excess bloom of harmful and not so useful algae.

We have been solving blue green algal blooms in fresh water lakes in
India using Diatom Algae.

Dinoflagallates cause Red Tides.
We are confident that Red Tides too can be controlled using Diatoms.

Fish population in the oceans is declining, Diatoms are the natural
food for fish - diatoms are consumed by Zooplankton and these by fish.
I have seen a report that the fish population of the oceans has
reduced from about 7 billion tons 200 years ago to 2 billion tons at
present, but could not confirm the numbers. Diatoms can help restore
the fish population and the carbon in the form of Calcium Carbonate in
the bones of the fish would also help sequester.

I look forward to a debate on the issue of Diatoms vs other
phytoplankton and Nualgi vs other micro nutrients.

best regards

M V Bhaskar
Kadambari Consultants Pvt Ltd
Hyderabad. India
+91 92465 08213
www.kadambari.net
www.nualgi.com/new
www.nualgi.blogspot.com
Post on Oilgae blog - 
http://www.oilgae.com/blog/2009/10/nualgi-algae-nutrient-that-cleans.html




On Nov 6, 6:27 pm, Veli Albert Kallio albert_kal...@hotmail.com
wrote:
 ROYAL SOCIETY INVITATION TO GEOENGINEERING MEETING 19.01.2010.

 (Information for your diary if able to attend.)

 Subject: Geoengineering: a brave new world? 19 January 2010
 Date: Fri, 6 Nov 2009 10:21:38 +
 To: albert_kal...@hotmail.com
 From: events.cvlriqduvf...@newsletters.royalsociety.org

 If you are having difficulties viewing this email, click here for an online 
 version

 Geoengineering: a brave new world?

 Tuesday 19 January 2010 at 6.30pm

 Speakers include:

 Professor John Shepherd FRS (University of Southampton)

 Professor Brian Launder FREng FRS (University of Manchester)

 Dr David Santillo
 (Greenpeace)

 Professor Corinne Le Quéré
 (University of East Anglia and the British Antarctic Survey)

 Professor Steve Rayner
 (University of Oxford)

 Location:
 The Royal Society
 6-9 Carlton House
 London SW1Y 5AG

 Dear FRGS (A Fellow of Royal Geographical Society) Kallio,

 The Royal Society is holding a public lecture on Tuesday 19 January 2010 
 which may be of interest to you. Please feel free to pass this on to anyone 
 who may be interested.

 Since the industrial revolution, mankind has made choices that have led to 
 significant emissions of greenhouse gases, causing climate change that is 
 expected to become much more serious during this century. Several proposals 
 have been put forward to reduce future climate change by intervening directly 
 in the Earth's natural climate system and these have collectively become 
 known as geoengineering. This is a very new and rapidly developing area of 
 science and technology and the proposals range from placing giant mirrors in 
 space to reflect sunlight to fertilising the oceans with nutrients in order