|
|
|
|
21 January, 2008 by dan
|
Neal Dikeman at Jane Capital and several of his industry peers maintain one of the most followed online sources for timely news and perspective on all things cleantech. He was gracious enough recently to Neal Dikeman at Jane Capital and several of his industry peers maintain one of the most followed online sources for timely news and perspective on all things cleantech. He was gracious enough recently to interview Dan Whaley about Climos and OIF. |
|
 |
|
|
21 January, 2008 by dan
|
A Jan 11 Policy Forum in Science magazine, “Ocean Fertilization: Moving forward in a sea of uncertainty“, sounded a supportive, though cautious, note for further evaluation of OIF as a potential climate mitigation tool.
The article stresses the need to have better demonstration of
sequestration and permanence in particular before carbon offsets are
sold from these early demonstrations. We certainly agree that past
demonstrations have not been done in a way consistent with rigorous
market protocols, and have not sought independent verification of
results.
Climos has provided a response that seeks to highlight under what
conditions we feel cost recovery via the carbon market would be
justified, and provides some analogies of other carbon projects which
do so in support of ongoing research efforts.
Read it here: Are Carbon Offsets Appropriate for Ocean Iron Fertilization?
We also note that one of the authors of the Policy Forum piece, Dr. Anthony Michaels clarified his position in Science Daily. |
|
|
|
|
14 January, 2008 by kevin
|
A recent paper related to ocean fertilization is the 2007 Cassar et al. paper “The Southern Ocean Biological Response to Aeolian Iron Deposition”.
This paper strongly suggests natural iron fertilization in the Southern
Ocean causes sequestration of carbon dioxide, and that this may have
been a major cause of the reduction of atmospheric CO2 during the ice
ages. Their modeling shows that up to half of the total CO2 reduction
from Interglacial to Glacial conditions could have been caused by this
process, or 40ppm CO2. The implication is that a program of
anthropogenic iron fertilization could have significant atmospheric
carbon reduction benefit.
Now, Philip Boyd and Douglas Mackie have published a Technical Comment in Science that challenges the assertion of the Cassar et al. paper. Science has also published Cassar’s response.
The primary critique by Boyd and Mackie is that Cassar’s iron
dissolution model does not apply to the Southern Ocean. Cassar responds
that observed increases in airborne dust also strongly correlate to
increases in biologic productivity, which suggests that questions over
the iron dissolution model do not affect the fundamental conclusion of
the original paper. Cassar also defends the iron dissolution model, as
well as the other criticisms of Boyd and Mackie.
Here is the abstract of the original paper:
The Southern Ocean Biological Response to Aeolian Iron Deposition
SCIENCE VOL 317 24 AUGUST 2007
Nicolas Cassar, Michael L. Bender, Bruce A. Barnett, Songmiao Fan, Walter J. Moxim, Hiram Levy II, Bronte Tilbrook
Biogeochemical rate processes in the Southern Ocean have an
important impact on the global environment. Here, we summarize an
extensive set of published and new data that establishes the pattern of
gross primary production and net community production over large areas
of the Southern Ocean. We compare these rates with model estimates of
dissolved iron that is added to surface waters by aerosols. This
comparison shows that net community production, which is comparable to
export production, is proportional to modeled input of soluble iron in
aerosols. Our results strengthen the evidence that the addition of
aerosol iron fertilizes export production in the Southern Ocean. The
data also show that aerosol iron input particularly enhances gross
primary production over the large area of the Southern Ocean downwind
of dry continental areas. |
|
|
|
|
20 December, 2007 by kevin
|
Environmental Science & Technology has published a summary of major events regarding ocean fertilization during 2007. This article is factual and
provides a mostly balanced perspective. Essentially more research is
needed to understand potential benefits and impacts of large scale
fertilization, and it is conceivable that commercial operations could
provide funding to accelerate this research. There seems to be a
concern that commercial funding might somehow contaminate the
scientific process. Our opinion is that if appropriate controls, such
as a defined methodology and third party verification are used on
demonstrations led by respected members of the science community– and
if these controls result in measurable sequestration for with
permanence– then commercial sale is reasonable and can be used to help
fund these larger scale demonstrations.For reference, the website for
the recent WHOI OIF Symposium and the closing summary |
|
|
|
|
19 December, 2007 by kevin
|
Often a press release accompanies the release of a major scientific paper. A recent example is a press release by the University of Miami, which is based on a paper published in JGR by Lutz et al. Unfortunately, the findings of the paper itself contradict the claims of the press release.
Climos has written a response to the Press Release (download).
The abstract is posted below:
<i>JOURNAL OF GEOPHYSICAL RESEARCH, VOL. 112, C10011, 2007
Seasonal rhythms of net primary production and
particulate organic carbon flux to depth describe the efficiency of
biological pump in the global ocean Lutz, et al.Abstract: We investigate the functioning of the ocean’s
biological pump by analyzing the vertical transfer efficiency of
particulate organic carbon (POC). Data evaluated include globally
distributed time series of sediment trap POC flux, and remotely sensed
estimates of net primary production (NPP) and sea surface temperature
(SST). Mathematical techniques are developed to compare these
temporally discordant time series using NPP and POC flux climatologies.
The seasonal variation of NPP is mapped and shows regional- and
basin-scale biogeographic patterns reflecting solar, climatic, and
oceanographic controls. Patterns of flux are similar, with more
high-frequency variability and a subtropical-subpolar pattern of
maximum flux delayed by about 5 days per degree latitude increase,
coherent across multiple sediment trap time series. Seasonal
production-to-flux analyses indicate during intervals of bloom
production, the sinking fraction of NPP is typically half that of other
seasons. This globally synchronous pattern may result from seasonally
varying biodegradability or multiseasonal retention of POC. The
relationship between NPP variability and flux variability reverses with
latitude, and may reflect dominance by the large-amplitude seasonal NPP
signal at higher latitudes. We construct algorithms describing labile
and refractory flux components as a function of remotely sensed NPP
rates, NPP variability, and SST, which predict POC flux with accuracies
greater than equations typically employed by global climate models.
Globally mapped predictions of POC export, flux to depth, and
sedimentation are supplied. Results indicate improved ocean carbon
cycle forecasts may be obtained by combining satellite-based
observations and more mechanistic representations taking into account
factors such as mineral ballasting and ecosystem structure. |
|
|
|
|
5 December, 2007 by ben
|
An overview of ocean iron fertilization (OIF) was covered in the IETA 2007 Greenhouse Gas Market report, released during the recent Bali Conference of the Parties (COP 13). The overview, provided by Climos, covers technical aspects of OIF relating to standard industry GHG accounting protocols, environmental questions that have been raised and recent developments in the field.
Climos also gave an overview of OIF in a side session co-sponsored by IETA during the Bali Conference.
An overview of ocean iron fertilization (OIF) was covered in the IETA 2007 Greenhouse Gas Market report, released during the recent Bali Conference of the Parties (COP 13). The overview, provided by Climos, covers technical aspects of OIF relating to standard industry GHG accounting protocols, environmental questions that have been raised and recent developments in the field.
Climos also gave an overview of OIF in a side session co-sponsored by IETA during the Bali Conference. The full IETA report can be downloaded here. |
|
|
|
|
9 October, 2007 by dan
|
See Dr. Margaret Leinen, Climos Chief Science Officer, lecturing at the recent MIT Earth System Initiative / Center for Global Change Science Symposium, October 9.
See Dr. Margaret Leinen, Climos Chief Science Officer, lecturing at the recent MIT Earth System Initiative / Center for Global Change Science Symposium, October 9. View the video here Read an overview of her lecture here On the symposium: One of the most baffling questions in science - where did life come from? - opened the first "Earth System Revolutions: Key Turning Points in the History of Our Planet," a symposium on Oct. 9 sponsored by MIT's Earth System Initiative and the Center for Global Change Science.
Before the daylong event concluded, the audience was pondering an equally significant question: "Where is life on earth going?"
These two questions bracketed a series of presentations that ranged from the primordial rise of oxygen to the impact of increased carbon dioxide and higher global temperatures to alternative energy sources to how humans could "geoengineer" the earth to mitigate climate change. A consistent thread tied together the various topics: conditions on earth led to life and life has changed the earth itself. Long before we evolved, the planet's biosphere was in a state of flux; humans have, perhaps, just speeded up the rate of change.
As Penny Chisholm, ESI Director, noted in her opening remarks: "You have to know where you have come from to understand where you might be headed."
Margaret followed Dr. Paul Falkowski and Ron Prinn.
About her lecture:
The pace of global carbon emissions may be such that humanity’s best efforts to stabilize them below current levels by 2050 won’t be enough to prevent a significant increase in Earth’s temperatures. Margaret Leinen, drawing on the U.N.’s recent climate reports, and the latest research from the field, shows the dire graph: a red line of CO2 emissions marching steadily upward, with accompanying graphics depicting hoped-for impacts of international efforts to mitigate greenhouse gas release. The current global abatement “wedges” consist of technologies not yet developed or widely deployed, such as energy efficiencies, cellulosic biofuels, solar, wind, and nuclear. Leinen notes that most of the abatement in renewables “comes into play 20-30 years out,” and the “reality is there will be increases in CO2 in the atmosphere for the next 20-30 years while we try to address the problem.” Policy makers have not begun to grapple with the notion of delayed onset of emissions, says Leinen. Among scientists, there’s growing concern that “we’re going to be dealing with catch-up for a long enough time that we will suffer the consequences of emissions regardless of whether we put policies in place.”
These projections suggest to some scientists that we must take more radical, immediate steps and geoengineer our way out of global warming. But other scientists, says Leinen, are loath to discuss these approaches, much less let them see the light of day. Carbon capture and sequestration, “viewed as necessary mechanisms for emissions reductions by some” says Leinen, and which have captured the interest of politicians, are viewed by another scientific camp “as soft engineering, or geoengineering light.” When a Nobel scientist wrote an article proposing the use of stratospheric aerosols to decrease sunlight hitting the earth, alarmed scientists lobbied prestigious journals not to publish it. Leinen’s own area of research, ocean iron fertilization, attempts to stimulate phytoplankton activity, which would help sop up atmospheric CO2. These approaches all face opposition because of their possible, negative impacts. But, says Leinen, these arguments “ignore the fact that we’re faced with a situation in which we must have an entire portfolio of activities” for reducing CO2. She worries that lack of discourse, or constant dispute will put scientists in a position “where policy makers want to move to (the new) techniques … and we won’t have studied them sufficiently to provide good scientific answers about whether they work.” |
|
|
| <<Previous | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | |
|
|
