[geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[David Lewis]

During the Q&A after his 2012 AGU talk entitled "*Ocean Acidification: 
 Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?*", Ken Caldeira said:  "I 
actually think* if you sterilize the ocean*, yes vulnerable people would be 
hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that* we'd still have Chicken 
McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK* "  A video of Ken's entire 
talk is* available 
here*.
 
 He lays out the McNugget/Ocean Sterilization hypothesis starting at *minute 
50:20*.

This seemed to be Ken's answer to the question he posed in his subtitle, 
i.e. is homo sapiens facing a threat of extinction as a result of any 
particular odd behavior the species is engaged in at the moment such as 
carelessly dumping waste gases into the atmosphere which are changing the 
chemistry of the global ocean?  

Callum Roberts, a scientist who studies the impact of human activity on 
marine ecosystems, addressed an audience at the University of Sydney this 
year where he discussed the many problems human activity is causing life in 
the oceans.  He interrupted his litany of woe briefly to tell the audience 
of some "*good news*" he had:  "even if all the ocean's primary 
productivity were shot down tomorrow,* it will still be a long time before 
we suffocate *because there's plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere, enough 
for more than 1,000 years.  So hopefully we can get our heads around a few 
problems before then".  A transcript and audio download of Callum's speech 
is* available 
here
*.  His "we've got 1,000 entire years" comment starts around *minute 39:30*. 
  (Callum's Wikipedia page is here
).  

Callum does not address Ken's remarks directly.  I happened to hear him and 
thought this 1,000 year time limit idea could be a blow to those who 
thought the McNugget deliveries would still be happening in 3013 or so.  I 
thought some of them might be hanging around here so I post this.  

A transcript of the relevant section of Ken's AGU talk follows:  

Around minute 50:20, Ken Caldeira answers a question from the audience: 
 "well this is a sort of deep type question - the question is, what if 
reefs disappear, what does that mean, or to summarize... well who cares? 
 [50:40] And the standard answer is oh that there are vulnerable 
communities of poor people who depend on them [ coral reefs ] for fish and 
nutrients and you know there are numbers of how many hundreds of millions 
of people depend on reefs for their livelihood and tourism and all this 
kind of stuff.  And then there is the other sort of standard answer, oh 
this is a necessary component of the homeostatic earth system and if we 
lose these that humans are the next domino to fall. I personally don't 
believe any of that. I actually think if you sterilize the ocean, yes 
vulnerable people would be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that we'd 
still have Chicken McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK.  And so 
for me its really this sort of tragedy - and maybe this is a middle class 
American viewpoint - but that  you've had billions of years of 
evolution producing all this biodiversity and because we want to have - you 
know economists estimate it would cost something like 2% of GDP to 
eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from our energy system, maybe it would 
cost a few percent more of GDP so because we want to be a few percent 
richer we're willing to lose all this, all these ecosystems, we're willing 
to lose the Arctic ecosystem, we're willing to lose these marine ecosystems 
and to me its a little bit like somebody saying well I have enough money so 
I can run through the Metropolitan Museum and just slash up all the 
paintings  And so for me being a middle class American who is gonna 
have TV shows and Chicken McNuggets and burgers and things, for me its more 
this kind of ethical kind of thing.  Obviously, if you depend on your 
livelihood for fishing on a reef you're going to have a different 
perspective.  But that's enough of that.  
  

-- 
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] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Ken Caldeira]

David,

The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with
respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.

There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The rate of
removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol
per year.  I am not sure about pyrite oxidation and so on but you can check
out the attached paper for an entree into the literature.

In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any reliable
literature value. A better guess might be that we would have breathable
oxygen on the order of a million years if you eliminated all life on land
and sea.  If life were eliminated in the oceans only, I don't know of
anything that would impede our ability to eat Chicken McNuggets and watch
TV indefinitely.

Let me make it clear that I value life in the oceans quite highly and do
not at all like Chicken McNuggets.  (For some reason, nutters on the web
think that you can't discuss anything unless you are advocating actually
doing it.)

Best,

Ken

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, David Lewis wrote:

> During the Q&A after his 2012 AGU talk entitled "*Ocean Acidification:
>  Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?*", Ken Caldeira said:  "I
> actually think* if you sterilize the ocean*, yes vulnerable people would
> be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that* we'd still have Chicken
> McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK* "  A video of Ken's
> entire talk is* available 
> here*.
>  He lays out the McNugget/Ocean Sterilization hypothesis starting at *minute
> 50:20*.
>
> This seemed to be Ken's answer to the question he posed in his subtitle,
> i.e. is homo sapiens facing a threat of extinction as a result of any
> particular odd behavior the species is engaged in at the moment such as
> carelessly dumping waste gases into the atmosphere which are changing the
> chemistry of the global ocean?
>
> Callum Roberts, a scientist who studies the impact of human activity on
> marine ecosystems, addressed an audience at the University of Sydney this
> year where he discussed the many problems human activity is causing life in
> the oceans.  He interrupted his litany of woe briefly to tell the audience
> of some "*good news*" he had:  "even if all the ocean's primary
> productivity were shot down tomorrow,* it will still be a long time
> before we suffocate *because there's plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere,
> enough for more than 1,000 years.  So hopefully we can get our heads around
> a few problems before then".  A transcript and audio download of Callum's
> speech is* available 
> here
> *.  His "we've got 1,000 entire years" comment starts around *minute 39:30
> *.   (Callum's Wikipedia page is 
> here
> ).
>
> Callum does not address Ken's remarks directly.  I happened to hear him
> and thought this 1,000 year time limit idea could be a blow to those who
> thought the McNugget deliveries would still be happening in 3013 or so.  I
> thought some of them might be hanging around here so I post this.
>
> A transcript of the relevant section of Ken's AGU talk follows:
>
> Around minute 50:20, Ken Caldeira answers a question from the audience:
>  "well this is a sort of deep type question - the question is, what if
> reefs disappear, what does that mean, or to summarize... well who cares?
>  [50:40] And the standard answer is oh that there are vulnerable
> communities of poor people who depend on them [ coral reefs ] for fish and
> nutrients and you know there are numbers of how many hundreds of millions
> of people depend on reefs for their livelihood and tourism and all this
> kind of stuff.  And then there is the other sort of standard answer, oh
> this is a necessary component of the homeostatic earth system and if we
> lose these that humans are the next domino to fall. I personally don't
> believe any of that. I actually think if you sterilize the ocean, yes
> vulnerable people would be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that we'd
> still have Chicken McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK.  And so
> for me its really this sort of tragedy - and maybe this is a middle class
> American viewpoint - but that  you've had billions of years of
> evolution producing all this biodiversity and because we want to have - you
> know economists estimate it would cost something like 2% of GDP to
> eliminate carbon dioxide emissions from our energy system, maybe it would
> cost a few percent more of GDP so because we want to be a few percent
> richer we're willing to lose all this, all these ecosystems, we're willing
> to lose the Arctic ecosystem, we're willing to lose these marine ecosystems
> and to me its a little bit like

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Emily L-B]

Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley (you can google 
him).
There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't respond 
coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding is that decay of ocean 
matter would release noxious gases. So while there may be O2, it may be 
polluted.
Best wishes,
Emily.
Sent from my BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Ken Caldeira 
Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:05:06 
To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com
Reply-To: kcalde...@gmail.com
Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
Subject: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have
 Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

David,

The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with
respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.

There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The rate of
removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol
per year.  I am not sure about pyrite oxidation and so on but you can check
out the attached paper for an entree into the literature.

In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any reliable
literature value. A better guess might be that we would have breathable
oxygen on the order of a million years if you eliminated all life on land
and sea.  If life were eliminated in the oceans only, I don't know of
anything that would impede our ability to eat Chicken McNuggets and watch
TV indefinitely.

Let me make it clear that I value life in the oceans quite highly and do
not at all like Chicken McNuggets.  (For some reason, nutters on the web
think that you can't discuss anything unless you are advocating actually
doing it.)

Best,

Ken

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, David Lewis wrote:

> During the Q&A after his 2012 AGU talk entitled "*Ocean Acidification:
>  Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?*", Ken Caldeira said:  "I
> actually think* if you sterilize the ocean*, yes vulnerable people would
> be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that* we'd still have Chicken
> McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK* "  A video of Ken's
> entire talk is* available 
> here*<http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/gc44c-special-lecture-in-ocean-acidification-consequences-of-excess-carbon-dioxide-in-the-marine-environment-video-on-demand/>.
>  He lays out the McNugget/Ocean Sterilization hypothesis starting at *minute
> 50:20*.
>
> This seemed to be Ken's answer to the question he posed in his subtitle,
> i.e. is homo sapiens facing a threat of extinction as a result of any
> particular odd behavior the species is engaged in at the moment such as
> carelessly dumping waste gases into the atmosphere which are changing the
> chemistry of the global ocean?
>
> Callum Roberts, a scientist who studies the impact of human activity on
> marine ecosystems, addressed an audience at the University of Sydney this
> year where he discussed the many problems human activity is causing life in
> the oceans.  He interrupted his litany of woe briefly to tell the audience
> of some "*good news*" he had:  "even if all the ocean's primary
> productivity were shot down tomorrow,* it will still be a long time
> before we suffocate *because there's plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere,
> enough for more than 1,000 years.  So hopefully we can get our heads around
> a few problems before then".  A transcript and audio download of Callum's
> speech is* available 
> here<http://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/scienceshow/the-coming-crisis-for-the--oceans/4735314>
> *.  His "we've got 1,000 entire years" comment starts around *minute 39:30
> *.   (Callum's Wikipedia page is 
> here<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Callum_Roberts>
> ).
>
> Callum does not address Ken's remarks directly.  I happened to hear him
> and thought this 1,000 year time limit idea could be a blow to those who
> thought the McNugget deliveries would still be happening in 3013 or so.  I
> thought some of them might be hanging around here so I post this.
>
> A transcript of the relevant section of Ken's AGU talk follows:
>
> Around minute 50:20, Ken Caldeira answers a question from the audience:
>  "well this is a sort of deep type question - the question is, what if
> reefs disappear, what does that mean, or to summarize... well who cares?
>  [50:40] And the standard answer is oh that there are vulnerable
> communities of poor people who depend on them [ coral reefs ] for fish and
> nutrients and you know there are numbers of how many hundreds of millions
> of people depend on reefs for their livelihood and tourism and all this
> kind of stuff.  And then there is the other sort of standa

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Andrew Lockley]

In my view, history provides the best guide to the future.

Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their messy and
painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate disruption.

The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there is a
greater interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to transmit shocks
through the system. To further explain : our ancestors would not have heard
about an antipodean earthquake, whereas now such a tremor can send markets
into meltdown in minutes.

The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the American
middle class will survive the worst climate change in human history without
disruption to the Chicken McNugget supply, or to the ability of Hollywood
to produce Game of Thrones, is completely bizarre.

Someone, somewhere will likely be eating a piece of battered chicken meat.
Someone, somewhere will probably still have a working digital camera and
some kind of transmission equipment . This does not equate to an
uninterrupted experience for the US middle class.

A
 On Jun 8, 2013 8:42 AM, "Emily L-B"  wrote:

> **
> Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley (you can
> google him).
> There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't respond
> coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding is that decay of
> ocean matter would release noxious gases. So while there may be O2, it may
> be polluted.
> Best wishes,
> Emily.
> Sent from my BlackBerry
> --
> *From: * Ken Caldeira 
> *Sender: * geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Date: *Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:05:06 +0800
> *To: *jrandomwin...@gmail.com
> *ReplyTo: * kcalde...@gmail.com
> *Cc: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Subject: *[geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have
> Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert
>
> David,
>
> The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with
> respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.
>
> There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The rate of
> removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol
> per year.  I am not sure about pyrite oxidation and so on but you can check
> out the attached paper for an entree into the literature.
>
> In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any reliable
> literature value. A better guess might be that we would have breathable
> oxygen on the order of a million years if you eliminated all life on land
> and sea.  If life were eliminated in the oceans only, I don't know of
> anything that would impede our ability to eat Chicken McNuggets and watch
> TV indefinitely.
>
> Let me make it clear that I value life in the oceans quite highly and do
> not at all like Chicken McNuggets.  (For some reason, nutters on the web
> think that you can't discuss anything unless you are advocating actually
> doing it.)
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013, David Lewis wrote:
>
>> During the Q&A after his 2012 AGU talk entitled "*Ocean Acidification:
>>  Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?*", Ken Caldeira said:  "I
>> actually think* if you sterilize the ocean*, yes vulnerable people would
>> be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that* we'd still have Chicken
>> McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK* "  A video of Ken's
>> entire talk is* available 
>> here*<http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/gc44c-special-lecture-in-ocean-acidification-consequences-of-excess-carbon-dioxide-in-the-marine-environment-video-on-demand/>.
>>  He lays out the McNugget/Ocean Sterilization hypothesis starting at *minute
>> 50:20*.
>>
>> This seemed to be Ken's answer to the question he posed in his subtitle,
>> i.e. is homo sapiens facing a threat of extinction as a result of any
>> particular odd behavior the species is engaged in at the moment such as
>> carelessly dumping waste gases into the atmosphere which are changing the
>> chemistry of the global ocean?
>>
>> Callum Roberts, a scientist who studies the impact of human activity on
>> marine ecosystems, addressed an audience at the University of Sydney this
>> year where he discussed the many problems human activity is causing life in
>> the oceans.  He interrupted his litany of woe briefly to tell the audience
>> of some "*good news*" he had:  "even if all the ocean's primary
>> productivity were shot down tomorrow,* it will still be a long time
>> before we suffocate *because there's plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere,
>> enough for more than 1,000 years.  So hopef

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Ken Caldeira]

Andrew,

Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.

The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the
oceans. There was no reference to climate change in my statement.

I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would lead
from sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization.

This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my
scientific understanding.

Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to investigate
and protect human threats to ocean ecosystems.

*This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs*
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367>
(Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds)

Best,

Ken

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> In my view, history provides the best guide to the future.
>
> Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their messy and
> painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate disruption.
>
> The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there is a
> greater interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to transmit shocks
> through the system. To further explain : our ancestors would not have heard
> about an antipodean earthquake, whereas now such a tremor can send markets
> into meltdown in minutes.
>
> The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the American
> middle class will survive the worst climate change in human history without
> disruption to the Chicken McNugget supply, or to the ability of Hollywood
> to produce Game of Thrones, is completely bizarre.
>
> Someone, somewhere will likely be eating a piece of battered chicken meat.
> Someone, somewhere will probably still have a working digital camera and
> some kind of transmission equipment . This does not equate to an
> uninterrupted experience for the US middle class.
>
> A
>  On Jun 8, 2013 8:42 AM, "Emily L-B"  wrote:
>
> **
> Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley (you can
> google him).
> There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't respond
> coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding is that decay of
> ocean matter would release noxious gases. So while there may be O2, it may
> be polluted.
> Best wishes,
> Emily.
> Sent from my BlackBerry
> --
> *From: * Ken Caldeira 
> *Sender: * geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Date: *Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:05:06 +0800
> *To: *jrandomwin...@gmail.com
> *ReplyTo: * kcalde...@gmail.com
> *Cc: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Subject: *[geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have
> Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert
>
> David,
>
> The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with
> respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.
>
> There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The rate of
> removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol
> per year.  I am not sure about pyrite oxidation and so on but you can check
> out the attached paper for an entree into the literature.
>
> In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any reliable
> literature value. A better guess might be that we would have breathable
> oxygen on the order of a million years if you eliminated all life on land
> and sea.  If life were eliminated in the oceans only, I don't know of
> anything that would impede our ability to eat Chicken McNuggets and watch
> TV indefinitely.
>
> Let me make it clear that I value life in the oceans quite highly and do
> not at all like Chicken McNuggets.  (For some reason, nutters on the web
> think that you can't discuss anything unless you are advocating actually
> doing it.)
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013, David Lewis wrote:
>
> During the Q&A after his 2012 AGU talk entitled "*Ocean Acidification:
>  Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?*", Ken Caldeira said:  "I
> actually think* if you sterilize the ocean*, yes vulnerable people would
> be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that* we'd still have Chicken
> McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK* "  A video of Ken's
> entire talk is* available 
> here*<http://fallmeeting.agu.org/2012/events/gc44c-special-lecture-in-ocean-acidification-consequences-of-excess-carbon-dioxide-in-the-marine-environment-video-on-demand/>.
>  He lays out the McNugget/Ocean Sterili

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Andrew Lockley]

For a start, oceans provide 12% of the global food supply. Losing all that
could be the tipping point on its own, as a starving society unravels into
a vicious circle of conflict, de-industrialisation and de-urbanisation.
However, a far more serious concern is the change in the oceans which would
lead to them becoming sterilised. Likely, an ocean anoxic event is the
precursor event.

As I understand it, the Great Dying (P-T extinction) provides an analogue.
Anoxic oceans were linked with a mass extinction of land biodiversity. I
understand that a proposed mechanism for this is the creation of an
atmosphere laden with H2S and lacking a functioning ozone layer.

That's wouldn't be promising for the Chicken McNugget supply.

A
 On Jun 8, 2013 10:01 AM, "Ken Caldeira" 
wrote:

> Andrew,
>
> Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.
>
> The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the
> oceans. There was no reference to climate change in my statement.
>
> I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would lead
> from sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization.
>
> This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my
> scientific understanding.
>
> Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to
> investigate and protect human threats to ocean ecosystems.
>
> *This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs*
>
> http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367>
> (Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds)
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
>> In my view, history provides the best guide to the future.
>>
>> Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their messy
>> and painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate disruption.
>>
>> The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there is a
>> greater interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to transmit shocks
>> through the system. To further explain : our ancestors would not have heard
>> about an antipodean earthquake, whereas now such a tremor can send markets
>> into meltdown in minutes.
>>
>> The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the American
>> middle class will survive the worst climate change in human history without
>> disruption to the Chicken McNugget supply, or to the ability of Hollywood
>> to produce Game of Thrones, is completely bizarre.
>>
>> Someone, somewhere will likely be eating a piece of battered chicken
>> meat. Someone, somewhere will probably still have a working digital camera
>> and some kind of transmission equipment . This does not equate to an
>> uninterrupted experience for the US middle class.
>>
>> A
>>  On Jun 8, 2013 8:42 AM, "Emily L-B"  wrote:
>>
>> **
>> Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley (you can
>> google him).
>> There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't respond
>> coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding is that decay of
>> ocean matter would release noxious gases. So while there may be O2, it may
>> be polluted.
>> Best wishes,
>> Emily.
>> Sent from my BlackBerry
>> ------
>> *From: * Ken Caldeira 
>> *Sender: * geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> *Date: *Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:05:06 +0800
>> *To: *jrandomwin...@gmail.com
>> *ReplyTo: * kcalde...@gmail.com
>> *Cc: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>> *Subject: *[geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still
>> Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert
>>
>> David,
>>
>> The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with
>> respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.
>>
>> There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The rate of
>> removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol
>> per year.  I am not sure about pyrite oxidation and so on but you can check
>> out the attached paper for an entree into the literature.
>>
>> In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any reliable
>> literature value. A better guess might be that we would have breathable
>> oxygen on the order of a million years if you eliminated all life on land
>> and sea.  If life were eliminated in the oc

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Oliver Tickell]

And I challenge anyone to construct a plausible narrative in which human 
civilization survives the extinction of life in the oceans.


Oliver.

On 08/06/2013 10:01, Ken Caldeira wrote:

Andrew,

Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.

The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the 
oceans. There was no reference to climate change in my statement.


I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would 
lead from sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization.


This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my 
scientific understanding.


Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to 
investigate and protect human threats to ocean ecosystems.


*This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs*
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367 
<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367>

(Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds)

Best,

Ken

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote:

In my view, history provides the best guide to the future.

Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their
messy and painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate
disruption.

The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there
is a greater interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to
transmit shocks through the system. To further explain : our
ancestors would not have heard about an antipodean earthquake,
whereas now such a tremor can send markets into meltdown in minutes.

The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the
American middle class will survive the worst climate change in
human history without disruption to the Chicken McNugget supply,
or to the ability of Hollywood to produce Game of Thrones, is
completely bizarre.

Someone, somewhere will likely be eating a piece of battered
chicken meat. Someone, somewhere will probably still have a
working digital camera and some kind of transmission equipment .
This does not equate to an uninterrupted experience for the US
middle class.

A

On Jun 8, 2013 8:42 AM, "Emily L-B"  wrote:

Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley
(you can google him).
There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't
respond coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding
is that decay of ocean matter would release noxious gases. So
while there may be O2, it may be polluted.
Best wishes,
Emily.
Sent from my BlackBerry

*From: * Ken Caldeira 
*Sender: * geoengineering@googlegroups.com
*Date: *Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:05:06 +0800
*To: *jrandomwin...@gmail.com
*ReplyTo: * kcalde...@gmail.com
    *Cc:
    *geoengineering@googlegroups.com
    *Subject: *[geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd
    Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean
expert

David,

The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean +
biosphere with respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.

There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The
rate of removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is
about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol per year.  I am not sure about pyrite
oxidation and so on but you can check out the attached paper
for an entree into the literature.

In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any
reliable literature value. A better guess might be that we
would have breathable oxygen on the order of a million years
if you eliminated all life on land and sea.  If life were
eliminated in the oceans only, I don't know of anything that
would impede our ability to eat Chicken McNuggets and watch TV
indefinitely.

Let me make it clear that I value life in the oceans quite
highly and do not at all like Chicken McNuggets.  (For some
reason, nutters on the web think that you can't discuss
anything unless you are advocating actually doing it.)

Best,

Ken

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, David Lewis wrote:

During the Q&A after his 2012 AGU talk entitled "/Ocean
Acidification:  Adaptive Challenge or Extinction
Threat?/", Ken Caldeira said:  "I actually think*if you
sterilize the ocean*, yes vulnerable people would be hurt,
poor people would be hurt, but that*we'd still have

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Emily L-B]

It makes my life in the conservation community very hard to defend 
geo-engineering when statements like this are out. 
I am not going to try to engage in this scenario but invite a discussion with 
oceanographers and marine biologists if anyone is interested in exploring this 
hypothesis.
However, either way, this debate will fuel the contempt for an engineering 
approach to helping to mitigate-adapt to cc without full environmental, 
ecological and socio-economic analysis.
Off the cuff remarks can fuel alienation as a community rather than build 
bridges.
The ocean is not a bargaining chip, and it can be easily assumed that saying ok 
to losing all marine life could be linked to advocating SRM and not worrying 
about ocean acidification. We lend ourselves open to assumptions with lose and 
flipant hypotheses.
Please be vigilant not to further alienate geo-engineering and geo-engineers 
from the likes of ETC and other advocates against geo-eng.
Many thanks,
Emily
Sent from my BlackBerry

-Original Message-
From: Ken Caldeira 
Sender: kcalde...@gmail.com
Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:01:30 
To: Andrew Lockley
Cc: Emily Lewis-Brown; 
geoengineering; David 
Lewis
Subject: Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have
 Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

Andrew,

Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.

The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the
oceans. There was no reference to climate change in my statement.

I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would lead
from sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization.

This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my
scientific understanding.

Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to investigate
and protect human threats to ocean ecosystems.

*This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs*
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367>
(Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds)

Best,

Ken

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote:

> In my view, history provides the best guide to the future.
>
> Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their messy and
> painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate disruption.
>
> The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there is a
> greater interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to transmit shocks
> through the system. To further explain : our ancestors would not have heard
> about an antipodean earthquake, whereas now such a tremor can send markets
> into meltdown in minutes.
>
> The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the American
> middle class will survive the worst climate change in human history without
> disruption to the Chicken McNugget supply, or to the ability of Hollywood
> to produce Game of Thrones, is completely bizarre.
>
> Someone, somewhere will likely be eating a piece of battered chicken meat.
> Someone, somewhere will probably still have a working digital camera and
> some kind of transmission equipment . This does not equate to an
> uninterrupted experience for the US middle class.
>
> A
>  On Jun 8, 2013 8:42 AM, "Emily L-B"  wrote:
>
> **
> Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley (you can
> google him).
> There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't respond
> coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding is that decay of
> ocean matter would release noxious gases. So while there may be O2, it may
> be polluted.
> Best wishes,
> Emily.
> Sent from my BlackBerry
> --
> *From: * Ken Caldeira 
> *Sender: * geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Date: *Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:05:06 +0800
> *To: *jrandomwin...@gmail.com
> *ReplyTo: * kcalde...@gmail.com
> *Cc: *geoengineering@googlegroups.com
> *Subject: *[geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have
> Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert
>
> David,
>
> The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with
> respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.
>
> There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The rate of
> removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol
> per year.  I am not sure about pyrite oxidation and so on but you can check
> out the attached paper for an entree into the literature.
>
> In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any reliable
> literature value. A bet

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Ken Caldeira]

I was asked a question in a scientific conference and I gave the most
scientifically defensible answer I could at the time.  I still believe I
was correct.

The talk at the conference was videotaped and in this world everything that
you say lives forever.  I am not going to start censoring myself at
scientific meetings.

I don't want to live in a world that can be characterized by Chicken
McNuggets and television. I was not presenting this as a positive vision of
the future.

To me, a world with a sterilized ocean but Chicken McNuggets and television
is exactly the kind of world we want to avoid, but it is apparently the
kind of dystopic world we are heading towards unless we change our course.

I cannot help it if people think a world with a sterilized ocean, Chicken
McNuggets and television sounds attractive. At the time I did not imagine
that anyone could see this as a positive vision of the future.

I do not think the question is about whether human civilization can persist
in a world where we have created a mass extinction, but rather what kind of
world we want to live in.






On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Emily L-B wrote:

> **
> It makes my life in the conservation community very hard to defend
> geo-engineering when statements like this are out.
> I am not going to try to engage in this scenario but invite a discussion
> with oceanographers and marine biologists if anyone is interested in
> exploring this hypothesis.
> However, either way, this debate will fuel the contempt for an engineering
> approach to helping to mitigate-adapt to cc without full environmental,
> ecological and socio-economic analysis.
> Off the cuff remarks can fuel alienation as a community rather than build
> bridges.
> The ocean is not a bargaining chip, and it can be easily assumed that
> saying ok to losing all marine life could be linked to advocating SRM and
> not worrying about ocean acidification. We lend ourselves open to
> assumptions with lose and flipant hypotheses.
> Please be vigilant not to further alienate geo-engineering and
> geo-engineers from the likes of ETC and other advocates against geo-eng.
> Many thanks,
> Emily
> Sent from my BlackBerry
> --
> *From: * Ken Caldeira  'cvml', 'kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu');>>
> *Sender: * kcalde...@gmail.com  'kcalde...@gmail.com');>
> *Date: *Sat, 8 Jun 2013 17:01:30 +0800
> *To: *Andrew Lockley 'andrew.lock...@gmail.com');>>
> *Cc: *Emily Lewis-Brown 'em...@lewis-brown.net');>>; geoengineering<
> geoengineering@googlegroups.com  'geoengineering@googlegroups.com');>>; David 
> Lewis 'jrandomwin...@gmail.com');>
> >
> *Subject: *Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still
> Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert
>
> Andrew,
>
> Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.
>
> The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the
> oceans. There was no reference to climate change in my statement.
>
> I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would lead
> from sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization.
>
> This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my
> scientific understanding.
>
> Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to
> investigate and protect human threats to ocean ecosystems.
>
> *This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs*
>
> http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367>
> (Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds)
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> In my view, history provides the best guide to the future.
>
> Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their messy and
> painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate disruption.
>
> The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there is a
> greater interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to transmit shocks
> through the system. To further explain : our ancestors would not have heard
> about an antipodean earthquake, whereas now such a tremor can send markets
> into meltdown in minutes.
>
> The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the American
> middle class will survive the worst climate change in human history without
> disruption to the Chicken McNugget supply, or to the ability of Hollywood
> to produce Game of Thrones, is completely bizarre.

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Greg Rau]

If the ocean was sterilized, then presumably there wouldn't be any marine 
microbes to consume O2 or generate H2S, CH4, etc.  Good final exam written 
question for Biogeochemistry 476 - what would happen to the earth?

As for McNuggets, some Asia countries get 40% of their protein from the ocean. 
I'd buy stock in KFC.
Greg

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 8, 2013, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Lockley  wrote:

> For a start, oceans provide 12% of the global food supply. Losing all that 
> could be the tipping point on its own, as a starving society unravels into a 
> vicious circle of conflict, de-industrialisation and de-urbanisation. 
> However, a far more serious concern is the change in the oceans which would 
> lead to them becoming sterilised. Likely, an ocean anoxic event is the 
> precursor event.
> 
> As I understand it, the Great Dying (P-T extinction) provides an analogue. 
> Anoxic oceans were linked with a mass extinction of land biodiversity. I 
> understand that a proposed mechanism for this is the creation of an 
> atmosphere laden with H2S and lacking a functioning ozone layer.
> 
> That's wouldn't be promising for the Chicken McNugget supply.
> 
> A
> On Jun 8, 2013 10:01 AM, "Ken Caldeira"  wrote:
>> Andrew,
>> 
>> Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.
>> 
>> The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the oceans. 
>> There was no reference to climate change in my statement.
>> 
>> I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would lead 
>> from sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization. 
>> 
>> This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my 
>> scientific understanding.
>> 
>> Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to investigate 
>> and protect human threats to ocean ecosystems. 
>> 
>> This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs
>> http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367
>> (Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds)
>> 
>> Best,
>> 
>> Ken
>> 
>> On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>>> In my view, history provides the best guide to the future.
>>> 
>>> Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their messy and 
>>> painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate disruption.
>>> 
>>> The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there is a 
>>> greater interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to transmit shocks 
>>> through the system. To further explain : our ancestors would not have heard 
>>> about an antipodean earthquake, whereas now such a tremor can send markets 
>>> into meltdown in minutes.
>>> 
>>> The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the American 
>>> middle class will survive the worst climate change in human history without 
>>> disruption to the Chicken McNugget supply, or to the ability of Hollywood 
>>> to produce Game of Thrones, is completely bizarre.
>>> 
>>> Someone, somewhere will likely be eating a piece of battered chicken meat. 
>>> Someone, somewhere will probably still have a working digital camera and 
>>> some kind of transmission equipment . This does not equate to an 
>>> uninterrupted experience for the US middle class.
>>> 
>>> A
>>> On Jun 8, 2013 8:42 AM, "Emily L-B"  wrote:
>>> Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley (you can 
>>> google him).
>>> There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't respond 
>>> coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding is that decay of 
>>> ocean matter would release noxious gases. So while there may be O2, it may 
>>> be polluted.
>>> Best wishes,
>>> Emily.
>>> Sent from my BlackBerry
>>> From: Ken Caldeira 
>>> Sender: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>>> Date: Sat, 8 Jun 2013 15:05:06 +0800
>>> To: jrandomwin...@gmail.com
>>> ReplyTo: kcalde...@gmail.com
>>> Cc: geoengineering@googlegroups.com
>>> Subject: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have 
>>> Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert
>>> 
>>> David,
>>> 
>>> The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with 
>>> respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.  
>>> 
>&

RE: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Rau, Greg]

Also, if the ocean were sterilized, the ocean bio C pump would be turned off, 
so as the old CO2 rich deep water thermo haline circulates to the surface, CO2 
would degas to the air/surface ocean without a marine bio uptake 
counterbalance. So the earth would get hotter and the surface ocean more acidic 
(how much?). The oceans would get more alkaline because bio CaCO3 precip is 
turned off  and land/ocean mineral weathering is increased.  DMS and other 
marine bio aerosols turned off - consequences? Seabirds would be up a creek 
unless they liked McNuggets - seagulls?  Uphill nutrient hauling by salmon 
turned off - the grizzlies would be pretty bummed, not to mention native 
Americans and fishermen lobby. Anyway, an earth mode hopefully only experienced 
by someone's ocean biogeochem model.
-Greg

From: geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com] on 
behalf of Greg Rau [gh...@sbcglobal.net]
Sent: Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:13 AM
To: andrew.lock...@gmail.com
Cc: Ken Caldeira; David Lewis; Emily Lewis-Brown; geoengineering
Subject: Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have 
Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

If the ocean was sterilized, then presumably there wouldn't be any marine 
microbes to consume O2 or generate H2S, CH4, etc.  Good final exam written 
question for Biogeochemistry 476 - what would happen to the earth?

As for McNuggets, some Asia countries get 40% of their protein from the ocean. 
I'd buy stock in KFC.
Greg

Sent from my iPad

On Jun 8, 2013, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Lockley 
mailto:andrew.lock...@gmail.com>> wrote:


For a start, oceans provide 12% of the global food supply. Losing all that 
could be the tipping point on its own, as a starving society unravels into a 
vicious circle of conflict, de-industrialisation and de-urbanisation.
However, a far more serious concern is the change in the oceans which would 
lead to them becoming sterilised. Likely, an ocean anoxic event is the 
precursor event.

As I understand it, the Great Dying (P-T extinction) provides an analogue. 
Anoxic oceans were linked with a mass extinction of land biodiversity. I 
understand that a proposed mechanism for this is the creation of an atmosphere 
laden with H2S and lacking a functioning ozone layer.

That's wouldn't be promising for the Chicken McNugget supply.

A

On Jun 8, 2013 10:01 AM, "Ken Caldeira" 
mailto:kcalde...@carnegiescience.edu>> wrote:
Andrew,

Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.

The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the oceans. 
There was no reference to climate change in my statement.

I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would lead from 
sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization.

This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my scientific 
understanding.

Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to investigate and 
protect human threats to ocean ecosystems.

This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs
http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367>
(Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds)

Best,

Ken

On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote:

In my view, history provides the best guide to the future.

Civilisations are not long lived at the best of times, and their messy and 
painful demise is usually accompanied by minor climate disruption.

The more complex the civilisation, the less robust it is, as there is a greater 
interconnectedness, and hence a greater ability to transmit shocks through the 
system. To further explain : our ancestors would not have heard about an 
antipodean earthquake, whereas now such a tremor can send markets into meltdown 
in minutes.

The idea that despite this much more vulnerable society, the American middle 
class will survive the worst climate change in human history without disruption 
to the Chicken McNugget supply, or to the ability of Hollywood to produce Game 
of Thrones, is completely bizarre.

Someone, somewhere will likely be eating a piece of battered chicken meat. 
Someone, somewhere will probably still have a working digital camera and some 
kind of transmission equipment . This does not equate to an uninterrupted 
experience for the US middle class.

A

On Jun 8, 2013 8:42 AM, "Emily L-B"  wrote:
Hi all, I'd propose you put this hypothesis to Dan Laffolley (you can google 
him).
There are so many responses to this I am overwhelmed and can't respond 
coherently. Apart from anything else, my understanding is that decay of ocean 
matter would release noxious gases. So while there may b

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[David Lewis]

It seems obvious that you value ocean life, as you say "quite highly".  In 
your AGU presentation you called what is happening to the oceans a *"tragedy". 
 *I made sure to include the sentence containing that word in the partial 
transcript of your remarks that I posted here. 

I'm one of those who tend to believe civilization can only go so far down a 
path of thoughtless interference with the planetary systems. I haven't 
tried to assemble anything like a case that might convince a scientist. 
 When I was studying what happened at this year's AGU and I happened to 
hear you state your belief that Earth's oceans could be sterilized and some 
part of civilization, perhaps even a large part of it, could survive, I 
wondered how solid your case for this was. * *I realize that your reasoning 
is generally of the highest quality*.*  

Thank you for your statement "the 1000 year number... is not based on any 
reliable literature value".  The question as to whether the deliverers or 
consumers of the McNuggets would find oxygen in the air when they attempted 
to breathe and for how long was the first one that came to my mind when I 
heard you talk about dead global oceans at the AGU.  There would naturally 
be other questions.  

On Saturday, June 8, 2013 12:05:06 AM UTC-7, Ken Caldeira wrote:
>
> David,
>
> The residence time of oxygen in the atmosphere + ocean + biosphere with 
> respect to the lithosphere is millions of years.  
>
> There are about 4 x 10 ** 19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere. The rate of 
> removal of this O2 by organic carbon weathering is about 4 x 10 ** 12 mol 
> per year.  I am not sure about pyrite oxidation and so on but you can check 
> out the attached paper for an entree into the literature.
>
> In any case, the 1000 year number you cite is not based on any reliable 
> literature value. A better guess might be that we would have breathable 
> oxygen on the order of a million years if you eliminated all life on land 
> and sea.  If life were eliminated in the oceans only, I don't know of 
> anything that would impede our ability to eat Chicken McNuggets and watch 
> TV indefinitely.
>
> Let me make it clear that I value life in the oceans quite highly and do 
> not at all like Chicken McNuggets.  (For some reason, nutters on the web 
> think that you can't discuss anything unless you are advocating actually 
> doing it.)
>
> Best,
>
> Ken
>
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013, David Lewis wrote:
>
>> During the Q&A after his 2012 AGU talk entitled "*Ocean Acidification: 
>>  Adaptive Challenge or Extinction Threat?*", Ken Caldeira said:  "I 
>> actually think* if you sterilize the ocean*, yes vulnerable people would 
>> be hurt, poor people would be hurt, but that* we'd still have Chicken 
>> McNuggets and TV shows and basically we'd be OK* "  A video of Ken's 
>> entire talk is* available 
>> here*.
>>  
>>  He lays out the McNugget/Ocean Sterilization hypothesis starting at *minute 
>> 50:20*.
>>
>> This seemed to be Ken's answer to the question he posed in his subtitle, 
>> i.e. is homo sapiens facing a threat of extinction as a result of any 
>> particular odd behavior the species is engaged in at the moment such as 
>> carelessly dumping waste gases into the atmosphere which are changing the 
>> chemistry of the global ocean?  
>>
>> Callum Roberts, a scientist who studies the impact of human activity on 
>> marine ecosystems, addressed an audience at the University of Sydney this 
>> year where he discussed the many problems human activity is causing life in 
>> the oceans.  He interrupted his litany of woe briefly to tell the audience 
>> of some "*good news*" he had:  "even if all the ocean's primary 
>> productivity were shot down tomorrow,* it will still be a long time 
>> before we suffocate *because there's plenty of oxygen in the atmosphere, 
>> enough for more than 1,000 years.  So hopefully we can get our heads around 
>> a few problems before then".  A transcript and audio download of Callum's 
>> speech is* available 
>> here
>> *.  His "we've got 1,000 entire years" comment starts around *minute 
>> 39:30*.   (Callum's Wikipedia page is 
>> here
>> ).  
>>
>> Callum does not address Ken's remarks directly.  I happened to hear him 
>> and thought this 1,000 year time limit idea could be a blow to those who 
>> thought the McNugget deliveries would still be happening in 3013 or so.  I 
>> thought some of them might be hanging around here so I post this.  
>>
>> A transcript of the relevant section of Ken's AGU talk follows:  
>>
>> Around minute 50:20, Ken Caldeira answers a question from the audience: 
>>  "well this is a sort of deep type question - the question is, what 

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Fred Zimmerman]

On Sat, Jun 8, 2013 at 1:52 PM, David Lewis  wrote:

>
>
> I'm one of those who tend to believe civilization can only go so far down
> a path of thoughtless interference with the planetary systems. I haven't
> tried to assemble anything like a case that might convince a scientist.
>
>

There have been some reasonable scientific efforts to establish the limits
of interference.  The 2C, 4C, and 350 ppm targets are all based on what I
would call plausible SWAGs or one or two step estimations that are tied to
models of reality (not just arbitrary numbers).   A more sophisticated and
multidimensional approach was attempted by Rockstrom et al. See
http://www.environment.arizona.edu/files/env/profiles/liverman/rockstrom-etc-liverman-2009-nature.pdf

http://www.nature.com/nature/journal/v461/n7263/full/461472a.html the full
text is at

 A safe operating space for humanity
*Nature* *461*, 472-475 (24 September 2009) | doi:10.1038/461472a;
Published online 23 September 2009

See associated Correspondence: Cribb, Nature 476, 282 (August
2011)

Johan 
Rockström1
,2 ,
Will 
Steffen1
,3 ,
Kevin 
Noone1
,4 ,
Åsa 
Persson1
,2 ,
F. Stuart Chapin,
III5,
Eric F. 
Lambin6,
Timothy M. 
Lenton7,
Marten 
Scheffer8,
Carl 
Folke1
,9 ,
Hans Joachim 
Schellnhuber10
,11 ,
Björn 
Nykvist1
,2 ,
Cynthia A. de 
Wit4,
Terry 
Hughes12,
Sander van der 
Leeuw13,
Henning 
Rodhe14,
Sverker 
Sörlin1
,15 ,
Peter K. 
Snyder16,
Robert 
Costanza1
,17 ,
Uno 
Svedin1,
Malin 
Falkenmark1
,18 ,
Louise 
Karlberg1
,2 ,
Robert W. 
Corell19,
Victoria J. 
Fabry20,
James 
Hansen21,
Brian 
Walker1
,22 ,
Diana 
Liverman23
,24 ,
Katherine 
Richardson25,
Paul 
Crutzen26
&
Jonathan A. 
Foley27
Topof 
page
Abstract

Identifying and quantifying planetary boundaries that must not be
transgressed could help prevent human activities from causing unacceptable
environmental change, argue Johan Rockström and colleagues.


   - New approach proposed for 

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Ken Caldeira]

Greg raises a good point.

The riverine organic carbon flux is on the order of 10**14 mol / yr. If
there are about 4 x 10**19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere, this would give a
residence time of O2 in the atmosphere relative to microbial decomposition
in the ocean of several hundred thousand years.

I wonder how much of this organic carbon would oxidize abiotically. (Recall
that in an abiotic ocean, deep ocean waters would have O2 concentrations
similar to surface O2 concentrations in deepwater formation areas.)

If some of this riverine matter did not decompose abiotically, then we
would expect atmospheric O2 concentations to go up and not down (in the
counterfactual and extremely hypothetical  case of biotic land and abiotic
ocean).

--

*Please regard this as a thought experiment, and not a recommended policy
goal !!!*


On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Rau, Greg wrote:

>  Also, if the ocean were sterilized, the ocean bio C pump would be turned
> off, so as the old CO2 rich deep water thermo haline circulates to the
> surface, CO2 would degas to the air/surface ocean without a marine bio
> uptake counterbalance. So the earth would get hotter and the surface ocean
> more acidic (how much?). The oceans would get more alkaline because bio
> CaCO3 precip is turned off  and land/ocean mineral weathering is increased.
>  DMS and other marine bio aerosols turned off - consequences? Seabirds
> would be up a creek unless they liked McNuggets - seagulls?  Uphill
> nutrient hauling by salmon turned off - the grizzlies would be pretty
> bummed, not to mention native Americans and fishermen lobby. Anyway, an
> earth mode hopefully only experienced by someone's ocean biogeochem model.
> -Greg
>  --
> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com  'geoengineering@googlegroups.com');> 
> [geoengineering@googlegroups.com 'geoengineering@googlegroups.com');>]
> on behalf of Greg Rau [gh...@sbcglobal.net  'gh...@sbcglobal.net');>]
> *Sent:* Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:13 AM
> *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com  'andrew.lock...@gmail.com');>
> *Cc:* Ken Caldeira; David Lewis; Emily Lewis-Brown; geoengineering
> *Subject:* Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still
> Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert
>
>   If the ocean was sterilized, then presumably there wouldn't be any
> marine microbes to consume O2 or generate H2S, CH4, etc.  Good final exam
> written question for Biogeochemistry 476 - what would happen to the earth?
>
>  As for McNuggets, some Asia countries get 40% of their protein from the
> ocean. I'd buy stock in KFC.
> Greg
>
> Sent from my iPad
>
> On Jun 8, 2013, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Lockley 
> wrote:
>
>   For a start, oceans provide 12% of the global food supply. Losing all
> that could be the tipping point on its own, as a starving society unravels
> into a vicious circle of conflict, de-industrialisation and
> de-urbanisation.
> However, a far more serious concern is the change in the oceans which
> would lead to them becoming sterilised. Likely, an ocean anoxic event is
> the precursor event.
>
> As I understand it, the Great Dying (P-T extinction) provides an analogue.
> Anoxic oceans were linked with a mass extinction of land biodiversity. I
> understand that a proposed mechanism for this is the creation of an
> atmosphere laden with H2S and lacking a functioning ozone layer.
>
> That's wouldn't be promising for the Chicken McNugget supply.
>
> A
>  On Jun 8, 2013 10:01 AM, "Ken Caldeira" 
> wrote:
>
> Andrew,
>
>  Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.
>
>  The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the
> oceans. There was no reference to climate change in my statement.
>
>  I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain that would lead
> from sterilization of the oceans to downfall of human civilization.
>
>  This is not an expression of my values, this is an expression of my
> scientific understanding.
>
>  Let all realize that I spend a large chunk of my time trying to
> investigate and protect human threats to ocean ecosystems.
>
>  *This Scientist Aims High to Save the World's Coral Reefs*
>
> http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367<http://www.npr.org/player/v2/mediaPlayer.html?action=1&t=1&islist=false&id=176344300&m=178462367>
> (Aired Monday, 4/22 on NPR's All Things Considered; 7 minutes, 49 seconds)
>
>  Best,
>
> Ken
>
> On Saturday, June 8, 2013, Andrew Lockley wrote:
>
> In my view, history provides the best guide to the f

Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert

[Andrew Lockley]

There's no postulated route to a fully abiotic ocean. The closest parallel
is an anoxic ocean, dominated by archea etc. - and perhaps with sulphurous
chemistry dominating the mixed layer.

An alternative is an ocean shocked by acidification, overfishing, dead
zones and cascade extinctions.

Surely it's much more instructive to consider these realistic collapse
scenarios, rather than unrealistic imaginary ones?

One interesting point to note is that many ocean fish evolved from river
fish, strongly suggesting that rivers act as refugia during marine mass
extinctions, and that these mass extinctions are a real threat on geologic
timescales.

A
On Jun 8, 2013 11:39 PM, "Ken Caldeira" 
wrote:

> Greg raises a good point.
>
> The riverine organic carbon flux is on the order of 10**14 mol / yr. If
> there are about 4 x 10**19 mol of O2 in the atmosphere, this would give a
> residence time of O2 in the atmosphere relative to microbial decomposition
> in the ocean of several hundred thousand years.
>
> I wonder how much of this organic carbon would oxidize abiotically.
> (Recall that in an abiotic ocean, deep ocean waters would have O2
> concentrations similar to surface O2 concentrations in deepwater formation
> areas.)
>
> If some of this riverine matter did not decompose abiotically, then we
> would expect atmospheric O2 concentations to go up and not down (in the
> counterfactual and extremely hypothetical  case of biotic land and abiotic
> ocean).
>
> --
>
> *Please regard this as a thought experiment, and not a recommended policy
> goal !!!*
>
>
> On Sunday, June 9, 2013, Rau, Greg wrote:
>
>>  Also, if the ocean were sterilized, the ocean bio C pump would be
>> turned off, so as the old CO2 rich deep water thermo haline circulates to
>> the surface, CO2 would degas to the air/surface ocean without a marine bio
>> uptake counterbalance. So the earth would get hotter and the surface ocean
>> more acidic (how much?). The oceans would get more alkaline because bio
>> CaCO3 precip is turned off  and land/ocean mineral weathering is increased.
>>  DMS and other marine bio aerosols turned off - consequences? Seabirds
>> would be up a creek unless they liked McNuggets - seagulls?  Uphill
>> nutrient hauling by salmon turned off - the grizzlies would be pretty
>> bummed, not to mention native Americans and fishermen lobby. Anyway, an
>> earth mode hopefully only experienced by someone's ocean biogeochem model.
>> -Greg
>>  --
>> *From:* geoengineering@googlegroups.com [geoengineering@googlegroups.com]
>> on behalf of Greg Rau [gh...@sbcglobal.net]
>> *Sent:* Saturday, June 08, 2013 8:13 AM
>> *To:* andrew.lock...@gmail.com
>> *Cc:* Ken Caldeira; David Lewis; Emily Lewis-Brown; geoengineering
>> *Subject:* Re: [geo] The Caldeira "If you Sterilize the Ocean We'd Still
>> Have Chicken McNuggets Hypothesis" questioned by Ocean expert
>>
>>   If the ocean was sterilized, then presumably there wouldn't be any
>> marine microbes to consume O2 or generate H2S, CH4, etc.  Good final exam
>> written question for Biogeochemistry 476 - what would happen to the earth?
>>
>>  As for McNuggets, some Asia countries get 40% of their protein from the
>> ocean. I'd buy stock in KFC.
>> Greg
>>
>> Sent from my iPad
>>
>> On Jun 8, 2013, at 2:25 AM, Andrew Lockley 
>> wrote:
>>
>>   For a start, oceans provide 12% of the global food supply. Losing all
>> that could be the tipping point on its own, as a starving society unravels
>> into a vicious circle of conflict, de-industrialisation and
>> de-urbanisation.
>> However, a far more serious concern is the change in the oceans which
>> would lead to them becoming sterilised. Likely, an ocean anoxic event is
>> the precursor event.
>>
>> As I understand it, the Great Dying (P-T extinction) provides an
>> analogue. Anoxic oceans were linked with a mass extinction of land
>> biodiversity. I understand that a proposed mechanism for this is the
>> creation of an atmosphere laden with H2S and lacking a functioning ozone
>> layer.
>>
>> That's wouldn't be promising for the Chicken McNugget supply.
>>
>> A
>>  On Jun 8, 2013 10:01 AM, "Ken Caldeira" 
>> wrote:
>>
>> Andrew,
>>
>>  Please respond to what I said and not what you imagine I said.
>>
>>  The issue has to do with a hypothetical case of sterilization of the
>> oceans. There was no reference to climate change in my statement.
>>
>>  I challenge anyone to construct a plausible causal chain t