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

[voglerl...@gmail.com]

Robert,

. The foreward osmosis membrain is not robust enough for any use beyond 
whatTrent has indicated. Large scale off shore algal farms will need ridgid 
tanks. 

To better unstand just how inept thin film is in the open ocean, simply take a 
thin plastic trash bag (it is equivalent to a f.o membrain) out to the surf and 
try using in the water.

Beyond the obvious mechanical factors; If you were an investor, with even a 
minor grasp of real world oceanic conditions, would you pick fragile film tubes 
or robust tanks to risk your money on? 

Michael  
Sent with Verizon Mobile Email


---Original Message---
From: rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au
Sent: 12/26/2014 12:08 am
To: bstah...@gmail.com, bhaskarmv...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com, jrandomwin...@gmail.com, nua...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

Bill Stahl's perceptive observationthat Ocean Iron Fertilization (ie algae 
production) could be independent andprofitable as a carbon dioxide reduction 
technology points to the centrality ofalgae for climate stabilisation, as a way 
to mimic and industrialise naturalprocesses to provide scalable and sustainable 
rapid ways to fix more carbonthan we emit and drive down CO2 ppm levels.


OIF should be consideredthe starting point for scientific research programs to 
define objectives andmassively boost algae yield through a range of spinoff 
technologies.  For example, containing the produced algae fromOIF in the OMEGA 
membrane enclosures developed by NASA, and then concentratingthis algae as a 
useful commodity, offers a path to global economictransformation, turning 
carbon dioxide from waste to resource.  

Carbon taxes are merely anincidental distraction to this objective of carbon 
dioxide removal, which willstand or fall on the capacity of new technologies to 
compete against fossilfuels on purely market based economics without long term 
subsidy.  The role of governments is to provide seedfunding for innovation, in 
recognition that global warming is a primaryplanetary security emergency.  


Robert Tulip


  From: Bill Stahl 
 To: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com 
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; jrandomwin...@gmail.com; 
rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; nua...@gmail.com 
 Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2014, 4:08
 Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
   
good point Bhaskar. 
What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of 
some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral 
sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF 
you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent & 
profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a 
CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF 
actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with 
circumstances).

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar  wrote:



Bill
The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very 
low.The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special 
ships used.
You wrote -"And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any 
other serious way?) "

Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida 
Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at 
just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.So Iron Fertilization 
does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish can be caught and sold.
Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion tons 
200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring fish back 
to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would be very 
profitable.
Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of the 
goal of increasing fish.
Regards
Bhaskar
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote:
 A belated response:
This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per Bhaskar) 
was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the results in 
the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the previous record 
(and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - what is the value per 
fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could guess at that. And the 
resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD?

On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history...& the 
man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in addition* to that I 
see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the speaker's 
respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded paragraph on the 
value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for Russ 

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

[voglerl...@gmail.com]

There is no one tech path. We must accept and use a synergistic compilation of 
mean/methods to achieve the ultimate goal of enviromental stability without 
confict while achieving economic growth at the lower wage end. Yes, profit 
production is key. And, we need to move forward on the broadest basic tech 
level we have at this time.

Working the marine microbibal loop is our best option for generating both 
profits and enviromental stability. We must, however, keep in view the multi 
level needs (profoundly important relationships) within the biotic world.

Obviosly, without motivation for financial profits, no global scale/coordinated 
mitigation effort will come about...without 
trans-boarder/generational/industrial sector conficts.

Thus, focusing upon the most basic biological life support aspect of life on 
this planet (the oceans)  
and generating sustainable economical growth means and methods, within those 
regions, is our only hope for longterm survival.

We need a broad and deep field of marine options. Carbon pricing is a weak 
minded fools' tit.

Best regards,  Michael
 
Sent with Verizon Mobile Email


---Original Message---
From: bstah...@gmail.com
Sent: 12/24/2014 5:46 pm
To: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com, jrandomwin...@gmail.com, 
rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au, nua...@gmail.com
Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

good point Bhaskar.
What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon
price of some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF,
mineral sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the
fisheries OIF you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could
be independent & profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR
proponents who have a CDR process in desperate need of an economic
rationale. (How much CO2 OIF actually does sequester is still unclear to
me, other than it would vary with circumstances).

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar  wrote:

> Bill
>
> The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very
> low.
> The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special
> ships used.
>
> You wrote -
> "And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other
> serious way?) "
>
> Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida
> Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at
> just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.
> So Iron Fertilization does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish
> can be caught and sold.
>
> Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion
> tons 200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring
> fish back to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would
> be very profitable.
>
> Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of
> the goal of increasing fish.
>
> Regards
>
> Bhaskar
>
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote:
>>
>>  A belated response:
>> This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per
>> Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the
>> results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the
>> previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) -
>> what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could
>> guess at that. And the resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD?
>>
>> On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his
>> history...& the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in
>> addition* to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove
>> the speaker's respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded
>> paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for
>> Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote)
>> The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If
>> the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data,
>> then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was
>> beheading hamsters  in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely
>> respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even
>> amid a storm of disapproval.
>>
>> If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can
>> deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless
>> of whether it is 'respectable'. If

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

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

Bill Stahl's perceptive observationthat Ocean Iron Fertilization (ie algae 
production) could be independent andprofitable as a carbon dioxide reduction 
technology points to the centrality ofalgae for climate stabilisation, as a way 
to mimic and industrialise naturalprocesses to provide scalable and sustainable 
rapid ways to fix more carbonthan we emit and drive down CO2 ppm levels.


OIF should be consideredthe starting point for scientific research programs to 
define objectives andmassively boost algae yield through a range of spinoff 
technologies.  For example, containing the produced algae fromOIF in the OMEGA 
membrane enclosures developed by NASA, and then concentratingthis algae as a 
useful commodity, offers a path to global economictransformation, turning 
carbon dioxide from waste to resource.  

Carbon taxes are merely anincidental distraction to this objective of carbon 
dioxide removal, which willstand or fall on the capacity of new technologies to 
compete against fossilfuels on purely market based economics without long term 
subsidy.  The role of governments is to provide seedfunding for innovation, in 
recognition that global warming is a primaryplanetary security emergency.  


Robert Tulip


  From: Bill Stahl 
 To: bhaskarmv...@gmail.com 
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com; jrandomwin...@gmail.com; 
rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au; nua...@gmail.com 
 Sent: Thursday, 25 December 2014, 4:08
 Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
   
good point Bhaskar. 
What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon price of 
some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF, mineral 
sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the fisheries OIF 
you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could be independent & 
profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR proponents who have a 
CDR process in desperate need of an economic rationale. (How much CO2 OIF 
actually does sequester is still unclear to me, other than it would vary with 
circumstances).

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar  wrote:



Bill
The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very 
low.The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special 
ships used.
You wrote -"And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any 
other serious way?) "

Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida 
Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at 
just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.So Iron Fertilization 
does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish can be caught and sold.
Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion tons 
200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring fish back 
to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would be very 
profitable.
Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of the 
goal of increasing fish.
Regards
Bhaskar
On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote:
 A belated response:
This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per Bhaskar) 
was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the results in 
the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the previous record 
(and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - what is the value per 
fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could guess at that. And the 
resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD?

On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history...& the 
man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in addition* to that I 
see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the speaker's 
respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded paragraph on the 
value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for Russ George's work which 
has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) The recent Newsweek article on 
GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If the guy (and the Haida of course) 
did an experiment and generated data, then that's interesting and will have 
consequences. It's not as if he was beheading hamsters  in bulk or something! 
(Oh wait, that's entirely respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the 
subject forward, even amid a storm of disapproval.

If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can deliver 
at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless of whether 
it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other reasons, that will 
pretty hard to stop. 

Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce emissions 
and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage the latter, 
even i

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

[Bill Stahl]

good point Bhaskar.
What I meant to say is that as a global solution CDR requires a carbon
price of some kind to provide the engine that drives the many types, OIF,
mineral sequestration, biochar BECCS and so forth. Of all those types the
fisheries OIF you detail is the only one I can think of offhand that could
be independent & profitable - a reversal of the usual situation for CDR
proponents who have a CDR process in desperate need of an economic
rationale. (How much CO2 OIF actually does sequester is still unclear to
me, other than it would vary with circumstances).

On Wed, Dec 24, 2014 at 4:11 AM, M V Bhaskar  wrote:

> Bill
>
> The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very
> low.
> The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special
> ships used.
>
> You wrote -
> "And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other
> serious way?) "
>
> Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida
> Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at
> just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.
> So Iron Fertilization does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish
> can be caught and sold.
>
> Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion
> tons 200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring
> fish back to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would
> be very profitable.
>
> Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of
> the goal of increasing fish.
>
> Regards
>
> Bhaskar
>
> On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote:
>>
>>  A belated response:
>> This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per
>> Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the
>> results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the
>> previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) -
>> what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could
>> guess at that. And the resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD?
>>
>> On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his
>> history...& the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in
>> addition* to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove
>> the speaker's respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded
>> paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for
>> Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote)
>> The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If
>> the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data,
>> then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was
>> beheading hamsters  in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely
>> respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even
>> amid a storm of disapproval.
>>
>> If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can
>> deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless
>> of whether it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other
>> reasons, that will pretty hard to stop.
>>
>> Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce
>> emissions and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage
>> the latter, even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. And vice versa:
>> pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?)
>> won't distract from emissions reduction because any carbon price capable of
>> pushing CDR will have an even stronger impact on emissions.
>>
>> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, David Lewis  wrote:
>>
>>> I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive
>>> of what the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering.
>>>
>>> However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once
>>> claimed to be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion
>>> room heater does come into my mind.
>>>
>>> My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast.  I
>>> worked with him on his boat when I was a teenager.  Hence my great interest
>>> when I first heard about what the Haida had done.  I supported the iron
>>> fertilization project at the time.  I was critical of ETC at the time.  I'm
>>> with those who say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared
>>> to the sewage that is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or
>>> compared to the annual application of fertilizer to farms on land?  I
>>> support further research into fertilizing the ocean.  I think most people
>>> who fish the British Columbia coast will be very supportive of further
>>> research.
>>>
>>> On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:59:16 AM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote:

 David Lewis commented on November 18 about Russ George and the Hai

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

[M V Bhaskar]

Bill

The actual cost of the Iron used in the Haida Nation experiment was very 
low.
The $ 2 million cost includes all the data collection cost and special 
ships used.

You wrote -
"And vice versa: pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other 
serious way?) "

Yes, there is another serious way, as you have noted the cost of the Haida 
Nation experiment was $ 2 million and increase in Salmon was 50 million, at 
just $ 1 per salmon, this is a profit of $ 48 million.
So Iron Fertilization does NOT require carbon credits, if some of the fish 
can be caught and sold.

Fish in the oceans are said to have declined from about 8 to 15 Billion 
tons 200 years ago to about 0.8 to 2 Billion tons at present. So restoring 
fish back to the earlier levels and perhaps even exceeding that limit would 
be very profitable.

Billions of tons of Carbon can be sequestered merely as a by product of the 
goal of increasing fish.

Regards

Bhaskar

On Wednesday, 24 December 2014 15:26:57 UTC+5:30, Bill Stahl wrote:
>
>  A belated response:
> This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per 
> Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the 
> results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the 
> previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) - 
> what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could 
> guess at that. And the resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD?
>
> On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history...& 
> the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in addition* 
> to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the 
> speaker's respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded 
> paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for 
> Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote) 
> The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If 
> the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data, 
> then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was 
> beheading hamsters  in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely 
> respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even 
> amid a storm of disapproval.
>
> If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can 
> deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless 
> of whether it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other 
> reasons, that will pretty hard to stop. 
>
> Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce 
> emissions and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage 
> the latter, even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. And vice versa: 
> pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?)  
> won't distract from emissions reduction because any carbon price capable of 
> pushing CDR will have an even stronger impact on emissions.
>
> On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, David Lewis  > wrote:
>
>> I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive of 
>> what the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering.  
>>
>> However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once 
>> claimed to be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion 
>> room heater does come into my mind.  
>>
>> My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast.  I 
>> worked with him on his boat when I was a teenager.  Hence my great interest 
>> when I first heard about what the Haida had done.  I supported the iron 
>> fertilization project at the time.  I was critical of ETC at the time.  I'm 
>> with those who say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared 
>> to the sewage that is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or 
>> compared to the annual application of fertilizer to farms on land?  I 
>> support further research into fertilizing the ocean.  I think most people 
>> who fish the British Columbia coast will be very supportive of further 
>> research.  
>>
>> On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:59:16 AM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote:
>>>
>>> David Lewis commented on November 18 about Russ George and the Haida 
>>> Salmon Ocean Iron Fertilization Project.  David said 
>>>
>>> "Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the 
>>> rest of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his 
>>> bottles may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his 
>>> critics on this OIF project were "persecuting" him."
>>>
>>>  
>>> It is not fair or correct to describe Russ George as a snake oil 
>>> salesman, despite the problems that David describes in George's work dating 
>>> from 1999 on another topic. 
>>>
>>  -- 
>> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the 
>> Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
>> To un

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

[Bill Stahl]

 A belated response:
This is all very loose, but if the original cost of the project (per
Bhaskar) was $ 2 Million, and (per the quote from the National Review) the
results in the Fraser River alone were ~50 million more fish more than the
previous record (and George cites a delta of 170 million fish overall) -
what is the value per fish, or million fish? Perhaps David Lewis could
guess at that. And the resulting ROI on  the 2 million USD?

On Russ George, I understand a skeptical response based on his history...&
the man courts controversy the way the Pope hold mass. But  *in addition*
to that I see him used as a rhetorical foil, as a way to prove the
speaker's respectability by way of contrast.  Include an open-minded
paragraph on the value of OIF research, then close out with 'except for
Russ George's work which has no value, of course'. (This is not a quote)
The recent Newsweek article on GE was an example, if I recall correctly. If
the guy (and the Haida of course) did an experiment and generated data,
then that's interesting and will have consequences. It's not as if he was
beheading hamsters  in bulk or something! (Oh wait, that's entirely
respectable...for neuroscience). He has moved the subject forward, even
amid a storm of disapproval.

If the world does institute a consistent carbon price, and if OIF can
deliver at a cost that makes it relevant, it will be researched regardless
of whether it is 'respectable'. If it's already a money-maker for other
reasons, that will pretty hard to stop.

Pet peeve: There is no bright line between a carbon price to reduce
emissions and a carbon price for CDR. If you pursue the first you encourage
the latter, even if you are unaware of or hostile to it. And vice versa:
pursuing CDR via a carbon price (and is there any other serious way?)
won't distract from emissions reduction because any carbon price capable of
pushing CDR will have an even stronger impact on emissions.

On Sat, Dec 6, 2014 at 9:07 AM, David Lewis  wrote:

> I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive of
> what the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering.
>
> However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once claimed
> to be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion room
> heater does come into my mind.
>
> My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast.  I
> worked with him on his boat when I was a teenager.  Hence my great interest
> when I first heard about what the Haida had done.  I supported the iron
> fertilization project at the time.  I was critical of ETC at the time.  I'm
> with those who say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared
> to the sewage that is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or
> compared to the annual application of fertilizer to farms on land?  I
> support further research into fertilizing the ocean.  I think most people
> who fish the British Columbia coast will be very supportive of further
> research.
>
> On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:59:16 AM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote:
>>
>> David Lewis commented on November 18 about Russ George and the Haida
>> Salmon Ocean Iron Fertilization Project.  David said
>>
>> "Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the
>> rest of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his
>> bottles may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his
>> critics on this OIF project were "persecuting" him."
>>
>>
>> It is not fair or correct to describe Russ George as a snake oil
>> salesman, despite the problems that David describes in George's work dating
>> from 1999 on another topic.
>>
>  --
> You received this message because you are subscribed to a topic in the
> Google Groups "geoengineering" group.
> To unsubscribe from this topic, visit
> https://groups.google.com/d/topic/geoengineering/dzs-Ii_V9sw/unsubscribe.
> To unsubscribe from this group and all its topics, send an email to
> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com.
> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com.
> Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
> For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.
>



-- 
Thanks,
Bill Stahl

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

[David Lewis]

I'm sorry to have written something anyone might take to be supportive of 
what the ETC group has been doing in regard to geoengineering.  

However, whenever I think about Russ George, the fact that he once claimed 
to be in the process of bringing to market a lab tested cold fusion room 
heater does come into my mind.  

My grandfather was a salmon fisherman on the British Columbia coast.  I 
worked with him on his boat when I was a teenager.  Hence my great interest 
when I first heard about what the Haida had done.  I supported the iron 
fertilization project at the time.  I was critical of ETC at the time.  I'm 
with those who say what is one application of 100 tonnes of iron compared 
to the sewage that is dumped into the Pacific Ocean on a daily basis, or 
compared to the annual application of fertilizer to farms on land?  I 
support further research into fertilizing the ocean.  I think most people 
who fish the British Columbia coast will be very supportive of further 
research.  

On Friday, December 5, 2014 11:59:16 AM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote:
>
> David Lewis commented on November 18 about Russ George and the Haida 
> Salmon Ocean Iron Fertilization Project.  David said 
>
> "Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the 
> rest of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his 
> bottles may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his 
> critics on this OIF project were "persecuting" him."
>
>  
> It is not fair or correct to describe Russ George as a snake oil salesman, 
> despite the problems that David describes in George's work dating from 1999 
> on another topic. 
>

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

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

David Lewis commented on November 18 about RussGeorge and the Haida Salmon 
Ocean Iron Fertilization Project.  David said 
"Just because a snake oilsalesman happened to find out along with the rest of 
us that there areinteresting indications that, for once, his bottles may 
actually have containedsomething efficacious doesn't mean his critics on this 
OIF project were"persecuting" him."

 
It is not fair or correct to describe Russ Georgeas a snake oil salesman, 
despite the problems that David describes in George'swork dating from 1999 on 
another topic.  Indiscussing Ocean Iron Fertilization, the relevant issues are 
what authoritativeresearchers have to say


 

 “Dr. Tim Parsons, an oceanographer and professoremeritus at the University of 
British Columbia said “iron dumping from thevolcano in 2008 produced a diatom 
bloom which coincided with the migration ofyoung sockeye from the Fraser into 
the ocean. The Haida dump may have simulatedthis effect.”   
http://www.lionsbay.net/index.php/ocean-fertilization-insights.html

 
The evidence indicates record salmon yields due to Russ George's OIF 
experiment.  Anarticle in National Review states 
“In the Fraser River, which only once beforein history had a salmon run greater 
than 25 million fish …, the number ofsalmon increased to 72 million.”  

That is nearly triple.

Russ George himself put itclearly: 
“… a yearfollowing our 2012 ocean pasture restoration, …salmon came back in 
tremendousnumbers, more than in all of recorded history.  In many regions such 
as SEAlaska nearest to our ocean restoration project location… baby salmon … 
weretreated to a feast…The SE Alaska Pink catch in the fall of 2013 wasa 
stunning 226.3 million fish. This when a high number of 50million fish were 
expected.”

 
Saying we should not fertilize the ocean toincrease fish stocks is comparable 
to saying all farmers should be banned fromusing fertilizer.  The fishing 
industry should take up iron fertilizationat scale, to help reverse the plunder 
of the oceans and make fisheries moresustainable.  The likely climate impact is 
a bonus.


 
Here is an example of the unjustifiedpersecution of Russ George. L. JimThomas, 
Research Director, ETC Group, wrote an article in2013 in Huffington Post 
headlined Don'tDump Iron -- Dump Rogue Climate Schemes. Thomas called it a 
“pretense that dumpingiron in the ocean to stimulate a plankton bloom would … 
maybe even bring backsalmon stocks.”  Thomascalls the event a “rogue 
‘oceanfertilization’ scheme” and claims “the global chorus of concern was after 
all legitimate.” Thomasexplains his campaign: “Mostworryingly … HSRC haven't 
yet dumped … their support for geoengineering. Theirbusiness plan is still to 
seed the ocean with iron.”  


 
Given theapparent success of the experiment to increase salmon yields, and the 
simplecoherence of the theory of change, that feeding baby fish helps more of 
them tosurvive, the language about a rogue snake oil salesman is unjustified.  
Thomas has no basis to say the “global choruswas legitimate”.  The ‘global 
chorus’ whichThomas helped to orchestrate does indeed appear to be an example 
of unjust persecution.


 
In theworld according to Thomas and his ETC Group, “losing the rogue 
geoengineer maybe good for optics.”  Such statements appear to advocate the 
priority ofspin over science, of politics over evidence, of ideology over 
economics.   Of greatest concern here is the stultifyingeffect of such 
campaigns to prevent important scientific research with highpotential to 
contribute to climate stabilisation and protection of biodiversity.  The misuse 
by UN bodies of the London convention on the dumping ofwastes at sea to 
persecute a legitimate, effective and valuable scientificand commercial 
experiment is the real scandal in this story. 

 

RobertTulip

Disclaimer: Personal Views Only. 


 

 
From: DavidLewis 
To: geoengineering@googlegroups.com 
Cc: andrew.lock...@gmail.com; rtulip2...@yahoo.com.au 
Sent: Tuesday, 18 November 2014, 3:14
Subject: Re: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in theNorthwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?


 
Just because a snake oil salesman happened to findout along with the rest of us 
that there are interesting indications that, foronce, his bottles may actually 
have contained something efficacious doesn'tmean his critics on this OIF 
project were "persecuting" him.  

Eg:  This is the same Russ George who claimed his company was about tobring to 
market room heaters powered by coldfusion.  See:  "Unveiling the mystery ofcold 
nuclear fusion... an interview with scientist Russ George".  

A typical Russ Georgism of that time:  "Dr. Fleischmann's geniusinspired a 
generation of audacious researchers, and there are now thousands ofscientific 
reports confirming the reality, safety and stunning promise ofsolid-state 
fusion energy. Aided by his insight and most recent discoveries, webelieve it 
is time to start delivering that poten

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

[David Lewis]

Just because a snake oil salesman happened to find out along with the rest 
of us that there are interesting indications that, for once, his bottles 
may actually have contained something efficacious doesn't mean his critics 
on this OIF project were "persecuting" him.  

Eg:  This is the same Russ George who claimed his company was about to 
bring to market room heaters powered by* cold fusion*.  See:  "Unveiling 
the mystery of cold nuclear fusion... an interview with scientist Russ 
George ".  


A typical Russ Georgism of that time:  "Dr. Fleischmann's genius inspired a 
generation of audacious researchers, and there are now thousands of 
scientific reports confirming the reality, safety and stunning promise of 
solid-state fusion energy. Aided by his insight and most recent 
discoveries, we believe it is time to start delivering that potential to 
the world."  He had photos of cold fusion devices working in his lab - I've 
even seen a photo I can't find now of the prototype room heater.  It was 
supposed to be on the market by 2007.  

A cold fusion and Russ George debunker in 2008 pubished this:  "Highlights 
of Russ George's Business and Science Activities" 



On Friday, November 14, 2014 3:12:21 PM UTC-8, Robert Tulip wrote:
>
> What a great vindication for Russ George. This article raises issues that 
> all concerned with the politics, economics and science of climate change 
> should consider.  The environmentalists and UN agencies who have persecuted 
> Russ George should apologize and hang their heads in shame.  The science on 
> iron fertilization is not settled, but the indications are very positive.
>  

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

[Charles H. Greene]

No definitive conclusions can be drawn from the George experiment. However, the 
observations are interesting and should encourage a more rigorous, large-scale 
experiment, with controls and replication, by an interdisciplinary team of 
ocean scientists.

On Nov 14, 2014, at 6:05 PM, 
geoengineering@googlegroups.com<mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com> wrote:

What a great vindication for Russ George. This article raises issues that all 
concerned with the politics, economics and science of climate change should 
consider.  The environmentalists and UN agencies who have persecuted Russ 
George should apologize and hang their heads in shame.  The science on iron 
fertilization is not settled, but the indications are very positive.

[X]http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722  "for the past two years, salmon 
have flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northwest in sometimes 
record numbers  "the iron sulfide bloom is a likely factor contributing to 
those runs."

It looks like the opposition to the successful Haida Salmon experiment had less 
to do with protecting the environment than with using climate politics to 
damage the capitalist system.  The real moral hazard here is that climate 
politics has been hijacked by people who have an agenda to reduce economic 
growth on principle, and an ideological hostility to the profit motive.  It 
appears these critics are oblivious to environmental science due to their 
eagerness to cast business as the enemy.  The fact is, profitable CDR 
enterprises are likely to be the main contribution to a possible future 
stabilisation of the climate.  This is insufferable for some who have put all 
their eggs in the emission reduction basket led by expanded government 
regulation and tax.

The Pacific salmon iron algae project occurred in a safe environmental location 
with no apparent risk as a limited and well planned scientific experiment aimed 
to deliver significant economic and environmental benefits, targeted to poor 
indigenous communities.  It provided a structured replication of much bigger 
natural volcanic processes. The fact that this field experiment was not under 
academic auspices should be secondary to the actual methods and ideas, and the 
indifference of universities is more a condemnation of the failure of experts 
to be pro-active and get involved.  Russ George’s logic is impeccable and 
simple: feed baby fish and more of them will survive.

The false alarms raised about this pioneering work are entirely unjustified, as 
this article shows.  The intimidating attacks directed against this salmon 
algae work have been damaging for science, growth and ecology.

Robert Tulip
Disclaimer: Personal Views Only

From: Andrew Lockley mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>>
To: geoengineering 
mailto:geoengineering@googlegroups.com>>
Sent: Friday, 14 November 2014, 21:23
Subject: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?

[X]http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722
The first of a two-part series.
GEOENGINEERING:
Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2 
reduction scheme?
Joshua Learn, E&E reporterClimateWire: Wednesday, November 12, 2014
The first of a two-part series.
For the past 100 years, the Haida First Nations tribe in Canada has watched the 
salmon runs that provided its main food source decline. Both the quantity and 
quality of its members' catch in the group of islands they call home, off the 
coast of British Columbia, continued to drop.In the late 1990s and early 2000s, 
they became determined to do something about it. They built a hatchery, fixed 
watersheds damaged by past logging practices and sent more fish into the ocean 
for their multiyear migrations.
But the larger influx of fish that went out didn't return, and the search for 
better solutions for the small village of Old Massett on the north end of 
Graham Island in British Columbia eventually led the Haida down a path that 
culminated in the largest ocean fertilization project of its kind ever 
attempted.In the summer of 2012, the Haida Salmon Restoration Council (HSRC) 
joined forces with a California businessman, Russ George, and dribbled 100 tons 
of iron sulfate into Canadian and international waters in the Pacific Ocean off 
the back of a ship.
SPECIAL SERIES
Did an ambitious 2012 experiment to "fertilize" the ocean with iron filings 
reduce CO2? That remains a controversy. But Pacific salmon seem to have enjoyed 
it.The idea, promoted by George, was that this would stimulate the growth of 
plankton, which would be eaten by larger ocean dwellers and begin a feeding 
frenzy by the juvenile fish heading into the ocean. That might ultimately lead 
to higher survival rates and better fishing results when the fish came back to 
the island streams to spawn.
The sheer size of this exper

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

['Robert Tulip' via geoengineering]

What a great vindicationfor Russ George. This article raises issues that all 
concerned with thepolitics, economics and science of climate change should 
consider.  Theenvironmentalists and UN agencies who have persecuted Russ George 
should apologize and hang their heads in shame. The science on iron 
fertilization is not settled, but the indicationsare very positive.

 http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722 "for the past two years, salmonhave 
flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northwest in sometimesrecord 
numbers  "the iron sulfide bloom is a likely factorcontributing to those 
runs."

 It looks like theopposition to the successful Haida Salmon experiment had less 
to do withprotecting the environment than with using climate politics to damage 
thecapitalist system.  The real moral hazardhere is that climate politics has 
been hijacked by people who have an agenda toreduce economic growth on 
principle, and an ideological hostility to the profitmotive.  It appears these 
critics are obliviousto environmental science due to their eagerness to cast 
business as the enemy. The fact is, profitable CDR enterprises are likely to be 
the maincontribution to a possible future stabilisation of the climate.  This 
is insufferable for some who have putall their eggs in the emission reduction 
basket led by expanded governmentregulation and tax. The Pacific salmoniron 
algae project occurred in a safe environmental location with no apparentrisk as 
a limited and well planned scientific experiment aimed to deliversignificant 
economic and environmental benefits, targeted to poor indigenouscommunities.  
It provided a structuredreplication of much bigger natural volcanic processes. 
The fact that this fieldexperiment was not under academic auspices should be 
secondary to the actualmethods and ideas, and the indifference of universities 
is more a condemnationof the failure of experts to be pro-active and get 
involved.  RussGeorge’s logic is impeccable and simple: feed baby fish and more 
of them willsurvive.  

 The false alarmsraised about this pioneering work are entirely unjustified, as 
this articleshows.  The intimidating attacks directedagainst this salmon algae 
work have been damaging for science, growth andecology. 

 Robert Tulip

Disclaimer: PersonalViews Only

  From: Andrew Lockley 
 To: geoengineering  
 Sent: Friday, 14 November 2014, 21:23
 Subject: [geo] GEOENGINEERING: Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the 
result of a controversial CO2 reduction scheme?
   
http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722The first of a two-part 
series.GEOENGINEERING:Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a 
controversial CO2 reduction scheme?Joshua Learn, E&E reporterClimateWire: 
Wednesday, November 12, 2014The first of a two-part series.For the past 100 
years, the Haida First Nations tribe in Canada has watched the salmon runs that 
provided its main food source decline. Both the quantity and quality of its 
members' catch in the group of islands they call home, off the coast of British 
Columbia, continued to drop.In the late 1990s and early 2000s, they became 
determined to do something about it. They built a hatchery, fixed watersheds 
damaged by past logging practices and sent more fish into the ocean for their 
multiyear migrations.But the larger influx of fish that went out didn't return, 
and the search for better solutions for the small village of Old Massett on the 
north end of Graham Island in British Columbia eventually led the Haida down a 
path that culminated in the largest ocean fertilization project of its kind 
ever attempted.In the summer of 2012, the Haida Salmon Restoration Council 
(HSRC) joined forces with a California businessman, Russ George, and dribbled 
100 tons of iron sulfate into Canadian and international waters in the Pacific 
Ocean off the back of a ship.SPECIAL SERIESDid an ambitious 2012 experiment to 
"fertilize" the ocean with iron filings reduce CO2? That remains a controversy. 
But Pacific salmon seem to have enjoyed it.The idea, promoted by George, was 
that this would stimulate the growth of plankton, which would be eaten by 
larger ocean dwellers and begin a feeding frenzy by the juvenile fish heading 
into the ocean. That might ultimately lead to higher survival rates and better 
fishing results when the fish came back to the island streams to spawn.The 
sheer size of this experiment, when it was discovered, sent a shock wave 
through communities of environmentalists and scientists concerned about 
geoengineering -- schemes to intentionally manipulate the planet's climate. 
They called the actions a "blatant violation" of international laws set up to 
restrict the undertaking of such vast experiments due partly to the unknown 
secondary effects they may cause (Greenwire, Oct. 17, 2012).But for the past 
two years, salmon have flowed into rivers along parts of the Pacific Northw

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

[Andrew Lockley]

http://www.eenews.net/stories/1060008722

The first of a two-part series.

GEOENGINEERING:

Are record salmon runs in the Northwest the result of a controversial CO2
reduction scheme?

Joshua Learn, E&E reporterClimateWire: Wednesday, November 12, 2014

The first of a two-part series.

For the past 100 years, the Haida First Nations tribe in Canada has watched
the salmon runs that provided its main food source decline. Both the
quantity and quality of its members' catch in the group of islands they
call home, off the coast of British Columbia, continued to drop.In the late
1990s and early 2000s, they became determined to do something about it.
They built a hatchery, fixed watersheds damaged by past logging practices
and sent more fish into the ocean for their multiyear migrations.

But the larger influx of fish that went out didn't return, and the search
for better solutions for the small village of Old Massett on the north end
of Graham Island in British Columbia eventually led the Haida down a path
that culminated in the largest ocean fertilization project of its kind ever
attempted.In the summer of 2012, the Haida Salmon Restoration Council
(HSRC) joined forces with a California businessman, Russ George, and
dribbled 100 tons of iron sulfate into Canadian and international waters in
the Pacific Ocean off the back of a ship.

SPECIAL SERIES

Did an ambitious 2012 experiment to "fertilize" the ocean with iron filings
reduce CO2? That remains a controversy. But Pacific salmon seem to have
enjoyed it.The idea, promoted by George, was that this would stimulate the
growth of plankton, which would be eaten by larger ocean dwellers and begin
a feeding frenzy by the juvenile fish heading into the ocean. That might
ultimately lead to higher survival rates and better fishing results when
the fish came back to the island streams to spawn.

The sheer size of this experiment, when it was discovered, sent a shock
wave through communities of environmentalists and scientists concerned
about geoengineering -- schemes to intentionally manipulate the planet's
climate. They called the actions a "blatant violation" of international
laws set up to restrict the undertaking of such vast experiments due partly
to the unknown secondary effects they may cause (Greenwire, Oct. 17, 2012).

But for the past two years, salmon have flowed into rivers along parts of
the Pacific Northwest in sometimes record numbers, and questions remain
unanswered about the possible success, failure or effects of the experiment.

"I can't stand up and give you a rock-solid statement that says A equals
B," said Jason McNamee about whether the experiment had something to do
with the massive sockeye and pink salmon runs for the past two years.
McNamee is a former director and operations officer of HSRC and still
sometimes acts as spokesman for the corporation. But, he said, "the iron
sulfide bloom is a likely factor contributing to those runs."

Salmon, volcanoes and money

Where climate change entered into this vast fishing experiment is that it
offered the possibility for George and the Haida to cash in on it.In the
mid-2000s, British Columbia's Premier Gordon Campbell was pushing hard to
end a moratorium of offshore oil and gas development in the Canadian
Pacific.

McNamee said that representatives from a big oil company showed up at Old
Massett and asked village officials about potential carbon offset
investments -- something the Haida weren't particularly familiar with at
the time.

The oil executives didn't have any plan in mind and perhaps only made the
offer in an effort to promote goodwill with some of the coastal people in
the area. There wasn't a huge market for carbon offsets in North America at
the time, but the prospect of funding got the Haida leaders thinking about
ways to fund further operations to help bring their fish back.

Ocean fertilization generally involves using a mix of iron sulfate
monohydrate -- used also as a livestock feed supplement and in the iron
pills used by people who are anemic -- with iron oxide, or rust, into a
liquid solution then dumping it into the sea. The principle is that
phytoplankton, or algae, eat the iron. The algae are gobbled up by
zooplankton, including species like krill or copapods -- food that salmon
prefer.Most experiments of ocean fertilization are done by Mother Nature.
Dust storms and volcanic eruptions can drop large amounts of iron particles
into the sea.Sometimes it's hard to link these activities directly with
salmon productivity, but some experts think that volcanic eruptions do
offer rare glimpses into what would occur with really big influxes of iron
into the ocean.

"The two biggest [salmon] runs that have occurred are both associated with
volcanoes," said Tim Parsons, a professor emeritus at the University of
British Columbia and a research scientist at the Institute of Ocean
Sciences in Canada. "In 1956, an eruption of a volcano in Kamchatka
produced a run of 20 million salmon in 1958 in