Subject: CO_2 and Iron Fertilization
From: mnestheus@aol.com
Date: 18 Nov 1996 21:14:28 GMT
The New York Times
November 12, 1996
Ocean Test Backs Idea for Curb on Climate
By WILLIAM J. BROAD
he idea is to fertilize the sea with iron, creating such a bloom of sea
plants that they
gulp down tons of carbon dioxide from the atmosphere and curb the buildup
of this
climate-warming gas.
Long derided as foolish and politically dangerous, the idea has now been
put to the test
after years of foot dragging and has given strikingly good results,
stirring hot debate over
whether ecological tinkering might help save the planet from climatic
disaster.
The test was conducted southwest of the Galapagos Islands in the Pacific
Ocean, which is
a fairly barren area biologically. Over a region of 28 square miles, a
team of scientists
slowly poured into the sea 990 pounds of iron, which is thought to be a
limiting
nutrient in such unproductive regions.
Almost immediately, the waters bloomed with the tiny plants known as
phytoplankton,
and did so over more than 200 square miles, turning the sea from blue to
green.
No scientist has criticized the experiment publicly, but experts are at
war over whether
the test simply sheds new light on marine ecology or points to an
important way to
battle the effects of global warming.
Dr. Adam Heller, a chemical engineer at the University of Texas at Austin
who has
promoted the fertilization idea in Washington, hailed the explosive rise
in ocean
productivity as "very significant, terribly significant." Heller said in
an interview: "We
now have some way to cope with global warming should it become a problem.
I wish
we had more ways."
But detractors of such global engineering say its prospect offers a false
hope that
threatens to encourage polluters and undercut international accords meant
to curb
emissions of carbon dioxide, which is released into the atmosphere by the
burning of
gas, oil, coal and wood and is considered a main culprit in global
warming.
"As a scientific experiment, these results are fascinating," said Dr.
Michael
Oppenheimer, chief scientist at the Environmental Defense Fund, a private
group in
New York. "But as a potential solution to global warming, they have
limited if any
value, as far as our current understanding goes."
Fierce side debates are also developing over the cost of a program -- iron
is cheap but
megatons would be needed -- as well as its possible benefit of stepping up
the sea's
productivity and enhancing fish harvests.
Both opponents and friends of sea fertilization tend to agree that at
best, its widespread
use would probably cut atmospheric carbon dioxide by 6 percent to 21
percent, not
enough to end the problem but potentially sufficient to dent it.
And all sides agree that the overall impact of an iron-seeding program on
the ocean's
ecology is riddled with uncertainties, especially for the sea's deeper
ecosystems, of which
little is known. In short, the cure might turn out to be worse than the
disease.
Advocates of the iron-seeding idea say such uncertainties, are no reason
to soft-pedal it,
especially given the threat of climate change and its attendant upheavals.
Years of
serious research lie ahead, they say, including exploring the natural
history of iron
fluctuations in the sea, which some scientists now speculate may be linked
to the onset
of the ice ages.
"It's much too early to have a policy debate," said Russell Seitz, an
associate of the Olin
Center for Strategic Studies at Harvard University. "Despite this, the
issue seems to been
born politicized. Witness the rush to criticize the hypothesis in the
early 1990s before the
experiment was even done. Given the extent of our ignorance, and the
stakes, I'm
astonished to see polemics getting the better of science."
Part of the problem lies in the differing agendas of scientists and
engineers. In general,
scientists devote themselves to studying nature and unraveling its
secrets, while
engineers use science to rearrange nature in the service of humanity.
Periodically, the two groups have been at loggerheads, the tensions rising
steadily in the
last few decades as a new kind of visionary has begun to dream of global
countermeasures to climatic ills, envisioning huge ecoengineering projects
far beyond
the engineer's usual domain of making new kinds of computers and space
vehicles.
Remarkably, the current battle of the ecoengineering war centers on one of
nature's
smallest organisms, phytoplankton, which are ubiquitous through the sea,
though their
numbers vary widely, depending on local levels of nutrients.
In coastal waters rich in agricultural runoff and human sewage, their
numbers can swell
into the range of 100,000 per drop of water, turning the sea cloudy and
brown or soupy
green. Far from shore, however, phytoplankton dwindle as low as about 1
per drop, and
in consequence these waters are usually deep blue.
Since phytoplankton are the most important of the sea's primary producers,
trapping
the abundant energy of sunlight and so becoming the foundation of the
ocean's food
chain, the biological productivity of each region of the sea depends on
how many
phytoplankton it supports.
A longstanding mystery of oceanography is that of why phytoplankton levels
vary so
widely, and can be low even in regions rich in nitrogen and phosphorus,
the principal
nutrients of plants. Seas that are low in phytoplankton but high in
primary nutrients
account for about 20 percent of the ocean surface.
Beginning in 1986, Dr. John H. Martin, an oceanographer at the Moss
Landing Marine
Laboratories in California, proposed that low iron levels might account
for the poor
productivity. His idea was widely dismissed, even though scientists have
long known
that iron is vital to the health of most animals and plants, and that iron
deficiency is a
serious problem in many kinds of crops.
Among other things, iron aids photosynthesis by helping to move around the
subatomic particles known as electrons, which play a leading role in
trapping sunlight's
energy.
Despite skepticism, careful experiments in the laboratory and measurements
at sea
suggested that Martin's thesis was right. By 1988, with public fears
growing because of
the threat of global warming, Martin proposed that the fertilization of
unproductive
areas of the sea with thousands of tons of iron might fix the climatic
problem.
"Give me half a tanker full of iron," he told colleagues, "and I'll give
you another ice
age."
The idea languished until 1990, when the National Academy of Sciences,
which advises
the federal government, endorsed a test. But financing was slow to
materialize, and
many scientists and ecologists criticized the idea as an incentive for
polluters.
In June 1991, the American Society of Limnology and Oceanography issued a
public
statement that urged "all governments to regard the role of iron in marine
production
as an area for further research and not to consider iron fertilization as
a policy option
that significantly changes the need to reduce emissions of carbon
dioxide."
Dr. Sallie W. Chisholm and Dr. Francois M.M. Morel, both of the
Massachusetts
Institute of Technology, commented in an article accompanying the
statement, "The
'Geritol Solution' to global warming has been squelched for the time
being, but it would
naive to think that the issue will not come up again."
Martin died in June 1993, months before the first experiment that tested
his iron
hypothesis at sea. That experiment, in the Pacific some 300 miles west of
the Galapagos,
was ambiguous. A single dose of iron briefly raised phytoplankton levels,
but the test
ended prematurely when the fertilized patch sank beneath waters of lesser
density.
The experiment was redone in May and June 1995 by 37 scientists from the
United
States, England and Mexico, only this time the iron was dispersed in three
infusions
over a week to insure a more sustained release into the sea's surface. The
test was financ
ed by the National Science Foundation and the Office of Naval Research.
The fertilized patch lay some 800 miles west of the Galapagos and had an
area of 28
square miles. As detailed in four reports in the Oct. 10 issue of the
journal Nature, the
effect was immediate and striking.
The sea exploded in a frenzy of phytoplankton growth and reproduction
involving
trillions of organisms, with the effect reaching its maximum extent some
nine days after
the start of the experiment and extending over an oceanic area that had
expanded to so
me 200 square miles. The explosion was monitored mainly by measuring
levels of
chlorophyll, the green pigment of plants involved in the process of
photosynthesis.
Over all, the iron produced more than 2,000 times its own weight in plant
growth, an
impossible feat for any fertilizer on land.
"Within one week, about two million pounds of phytoplankton had grown,"
said Dr.
Kenneth H. Coale of Moss Landing, one the authors.
At the same time, levels of carbon dioxide in the sea water plunged more
than 15
percent as the expanding jungle of tiny plants soaked up the gas. Since
the atmosphere
and the sea constantly trade the gas through mixing and diffusion, the
explosive growth
had a large effect on that exchange as well.
Scientists say the experiment may have pulled more than 2,500 tons of
carbon dioxide
from the waters before the fertilized patch was broken up by ocean
currents. By
comparison, human pollution pumps billions of tons of carbon into the air
each year.
Dr. Bruce W. Frost, an oceanographer at the University of Washington in
Seattle who
commented on the study in Nature, said that an extrapolation of such
fertilization to a
much larger area would have "only a small effect" on future levels of
global atmosp
heric carbon dioxide.
In contrast, Dr. Kenneth S. Johnson, a chemical oceanographer at the Moss
Landing
laboratory who participated in both iron experiments, hailed the
experiment as basically
opening a new chapter in humanity's relationship with the planet.
"This shows that you could cause an ice age, which is a pretty profound
statement," he
said in an interview. "It has lots of implications."
Ecoengineers focus their musings on the Southern Ocean around Antarctica
because it is
the largest part of the global sea that exhibits the phenomena of high
nutrient levels and
low iron. It is already a highly productive region, teeming with krill and
the whales that
feed on the tiny crustaceans.
But scientists say the Southern Ocean, if enriched with iron, would become
even more
productive and would also become an enormous sponge for carbon dioxide in
the
earth's atmosphere. Such a move would require the dumping of millions of
tons of
iron into the sea every year, more or less continuously.
Among the hotly debated questions are at what cost, and to what effect. A
number of
studies have suggested that such enrichment would lower the range of
carbon dioxide
in the atmosphere by 6 percent to 21 percent.
But Dr. David J. Cooper, a member of the experiment team at the University
of
Wisconsin at Madison, said the 21 percent value was out of date and that
most recent
studies had found that the drop would be around 10 percent.
Dr. Cooper, an opponent of ecoengineering, accused its supporters of
exaggerating the
possible effects. "Scientists haven't been honest about it," he said,
suggesting that some
were playing up the idea as a way to get financing for experiments.
Mr. Seitz of Harvard, on the other hand, accused the experiment team of
bending over
backwards to play down the test's results, fearful of upsetting global
political agendas.
"If this approach proves to be environmentally benign," he said, "it would
appear to be
highly economic relative to a Luddite program of declaring war against
fire globally," a
move that might cost many trillions of dollars in lost development and
revenue.
Friends and foes of the idea agree that the big "if" in all this is the
proposal's ecological
impact, which is wholly unknown and vigorously disputed. Some scientists
foresee a
flowering of the oceanic food chain, ultimately producing more fish, while
other see the
oceans dying or significantly disrupted.
All agree that more research, perhaps decades of it, would be needed to
flesh out the
idea's repercussions.
"It's a mine field," Dr. Johnson of Moss Landing said of the topic.
"Everybody is stepping
gingerly."
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: "Vincent R. Clause"
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 15:39:34 -0500
Mike Asher wrote:
> In Medieval times, 90+% of the population was chronically malnourished. A
> man was deemed well off if he ate meat once a week. Most children suffered
> from rickets and other defiency conditions. Many castles and manor homes
> tossed trenchers (crusts of bread) and other dinner-table scraps to hungry
> people who clustered outside, who fought bitterly for line rights. Often,
> a government official would, upon their yearly visit to a village, find
> that starvation and disease had wiped out the entire populace sometime in
> the past year, with none the wiser.
>
> Beer was widely consumed, by children and adults, as water was too
> dangerous to drink. When you did drink river water, you were taught to
> "strain" it between your teeth to remove the larger creatures found
> naturally in it.
>
> Even the wealthy had their problems. Food poisoning was endemic, fruits
> and vegetables were unknown out of season, seafood was impossible unless
> you lived near the coast, and at thirty-five, you needed soft food as your
> teeth had all rotted out...unless an abcessed tooth killed you, as was
> quite common.
>
> This is the true world of 'organic' farming, biomass power, and
> deindustrialization many environmentalists would have us return to. I'd
> prefer to work out our problems and stay here.
>
> --
> Mike Asher
> masher@tusc.net
>
> "We must make this an insecure an uninhabitable place for capitalists and
> their projects. This is the best contribution we can make towards
> protecting the earth."
> - Environmental organization 'Ecotage', Earth First! offshoot.
Come on now Mike, you are starting to sound like one of the profits of doom yourself.
So, according to you, the impoverised conditions of medeval civilization are the result of the lack
of chemical fertalizers, and pesticides, and herbicides. Puuleeaase!
I guess the dirty creeks of medeval days, were also to be the blame of the naturalists, although I
do not have a single clue why. Do you?
The fat kings bad teeth are also the fault of the terroristic organic gardeners. Watch out, they
wait to smitten you with his safe and clean potions of herbs and compost.
I do not think I ever have heard such a poor analogy Mike. To compare medeval filth to safe and
natural horticulture is beyond reasonable comprehension. I guess the baseball strike and every
other bad thing that has occured these days is also the fault of these simple and pure
naturalistic thinkers.
Seriously now, I practice organic gardening, because it is the cheapest most sound method of
horticulture I know. Growing plants through chemical means is paramount to a person drinking a
glass of prepared proteins and carbohydrates, and taking a couple of pills, for years on end for
every meal. See how long you stay fit on an artificial diet, and then you will no longer wonder
why this is not good for plants either.
Answer me this. How is it that earlier this year, I had a census of over 600 plants(most in pots)
on my property, all organically grown, and all flourishing, while my neighbors wasted umpteen
dollars on chemicals that left them with yards lacking any natural beauty? It may have somethings
to do with a little TLC, a good substitute for chemicals any day. Just Say No To Chemicals!
Regards
-
Vince Clause - Inventor/Entrepreneur/Naturalist
President - V R C Enterprises Inc.
###################################################################
# ----> ----> http://www.ecosafe.com <---- <---- #
# Marketing Research*Product Design and Development*Consulting #
#Systems Analysis, Design, Administration*Specialized Web Services#
# #
# Please visit our new FREE online magazine, #
# "The Amalgamated Web" #
# Premier issue http://www.ecosafe.com/taw/v1i1.htm #
# #
# _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ #
# _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ #
# _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ #
# _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ #
# _/ @ _/ _/ @ _/_/_/ @ _/_/_/_/ @ #
# #
# V R C Enterprises Inc. E-Mail -> VRCE@Ecosafe.Com #
# 22111 Rockgate Drive Phone -> (713) 821-7313 #
# Spring, Texas 77373 V-Mail -> (713) 275-9692 #
# S U C C E S S I S A S S U C C E S S D O E S #
# ~*************~ ~***~ ~***~ ~*************~ ~*******~ #
###############################################################1996
Subject: Goodby Steinn
From: Jay Hanson
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 11:20:32 -1000
Steinn Sigurdsson wrote:
> I recommend you leave the Island Press diatribes
> aside for an hour and read Cohen's article.
Steinn, try to use your brain for a minute.
This is from the International Society for
Ecological Economics:
============================================================
"Investing in Natural Capital:
The Ecological Approach to Sustainability"
from the International Society for Ecological Economics
CARRYING CAPACITY REVISITED
Ecologists define "carrying capacity" as the population of a
given species that be supported indefinitely in a defined
habitat without permanently damaging the ecosystem upon which
it is dependent. However, because of our culturally variable
technology, different consumption patterns, and trade, a
simple territorially-bounded head-count cannot apply to human
beings. Human carrying capacity must be interpreted as the
maximum rate of resource consumption and waste discharge that
can be sustained indefinitely without progressively impairing
the functional integrity and productivity of relevant
ecosystems wherever the latter may be. The corresponding
human population is a function of per capita rates of material
consumption and waste output or net productivity divided by
per capita demand (Rees 1990). This formulation is a simple
restatement of Hardin's (1991) "Third Law of Human Ecology":
(Total human impact on the ecosphere) =
(Population) x (Per capita impact).
Early versions of this law date from Ehrlich and Holdren who
also recognized that human impact is a product of population,
affluence (consumption), and technology: I = PAT (Ehrlich and
Holdren 1971; Holdren and Ehrlich 1974). The important point
here is that a given rate of resource throughput can support
fewer people well or greater numbers at subsistence levels.
Now the inverse of traditional carrying capacity provides an
estimate of natural capital requirements in terms of
productive landscape. Rather than asking what population a
particular region can support sustainably, the question
becomes: How much productive land and water area in various
ecosystems is required to support the region's population
indefinitely at current consumption levels?
Our preliminary data for developed regions suggest that per
capita primary consumption of food, wood products, fuel, and
waste- processing capacity co-opts on a continuous basis up to
several hectares of productive ecosystem -- the exact amount
depends on the average levels of consumption (i.e., material
throughput). This average per capita "personal planetoid" can
be used to estimate the total area required to maintain any
given population. W call this aggregate area the relevant
community's total "ecological footprint' (see Figure 20.2) on
the earth (Rees 1992).
This approach reveals that the land "consumed" by urban
regions is typically at least an order of magnitude greater
than that contained within the usual political boundaries or
the associated built-up area. However brilliant its economic
star, every city is an entropic black hole drawing on the
concentrated material resources and low-entropy production of
a vast and scattered hinterland many times the size of the
city itself. Borrowing from Vitousek et al. (1986), we say
that high density settlements "appropriate" carrying capacity
from all over the globe, as well as from the past and the
future (Wackernagel 1991).
The Vancouver-Lower Fraser Valley Region of British Columbia,
Canada, serves as an example. For simplicity's sake consider
the region's ecological use of forested and arable land for
domestic food, forest products, and fossil energy consumption
alone: assuming an average Canadian diet and current
management practices, 1.1 ha of land per capita is required
for food production, 0.5 ha for forest products, and 3.5 ha
would be required to produce the biomass energy (ethanol)
equivalent of current per capita fossil energy consumption.
(Alternatively, a comparable area of temperate forest is
required exclusively to assimilate current per capita C02
emissions (see "Calculating the Ecological Footprint").
Thus, to support just their food and fossil fuel consumption,
the region's 1.7 million people require, conservatively, 8.7
million ha of land in continuous production. The valley,
however, is only about 400,000 ha. Our regional population
therefore "imports" the productive capacity of at least 22
times as much land to support its consumer lifestyles as it
actually occupies (see Figure 20.3). At about 425 people/km2
the population density of the valley is comparable to that of
the Netherlands (442 people/km2) [p.p. 369-371]
Even with generally lower per capita consumption, European
countries live far beyond their ecological means. For
example, the Netherlands' population (see Figure 20,4)
consumes the output of at least 14 times as much productive
land as is contained within its own political boundaries
(approximately 110,000 km2 for food and forestry products and
360,00 km2 for energy)(basic data from WRI 1992).8 [p. 374]
PUBLISHED BY:
The International Society for Ecological Economics and
Island Press -- 1994 http://www.islandpress.com
1-800-828-1302 or 1-707-983-6432 Fax 1-707-983-6164
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar (Humour!)
From: swanton@river.gwi.net (george p swanton)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 20:10:27 -0500
In article <56lhqg$jl3@netnews.ntu.edu.tw>,
Michael Turton wrote:
>In article <01bbd347$e6af2f80$89d0d6cc@masher>,
> "Mike Asher" wrote:
>
> [snipped]
>
>>Yes, wind farms have worked so well in the past. The example of Southern
>>Cal Edision, who spent thirty million for a 2MW plant leaps to mind. It
>>was sold for scrap a few years later, for $51,000. Or the windfarm in
>>Alameda Country, California? The operators have had to buy out all nearby
>>homeowners, as the noise is unbelievable. And they've also been the
>>subject of two (that I know of) lawsuits over the deaths from birds flying
>>into the vanes...included eagles and other protected species. I believe
>>the cost per megawatt there is around $16,000. Thats five times the cost
>>of a coal or nuclear plant.
>>
>>Some smaller wind turbines have been very succesful. However, to claim
>>these can any significant fraction of demand is ludicrous.
>
>
> [snipped]
>
> Ludicrous? How strange, then, that it the Energy Information
>Administration (EIA) of the DOE has printed in several of its publications
>that wind could, in fact account for a very significant proportion of the
>US energy supply. North Dakota alone could account for more than a third.
>The midwestern states could easily supply the whole US with wind power.
>Wind plants have a number of advantages over nuclear plants, such as greater
>on-line reliability, lower maintenance costs, less waste from power
>generation, space (remember, nuke plants have to have mines and waste disposal
>areas) and so forth. And of course, a catastrophe at a wind plant would
>not make large land areas unlivable for long periods of time.
While you make some good points, you overlook an important one also.
Wind (and solar) electrical generation facilities are intermittent
and not dispatchable. This does not render their capacity credit
zero as some might attempt to argue but does imply that, for the
forseeable future, other generating technology will also be required.
In the long term it may be possible to implement something along
the lines of the 'hydrogen economy' where renewables are used to
produce hydrogen for use in vehicles and dispatchable generating
facilities.
I neglected to respond to the mentioned bird-strike issue earlier.
While an occaisional strike will occur, perhaps due to sickness
or transient wind effects, the ground at a wind farm is not
littered with the carcasses of wayward birds, endangered or
otherwise. Birds are neither blind nor stupid. The rotors of the
turbines are clearly visible to them as studies have illustrated,
flocks of migrating birds have been observed to change course
well in advance to avoid a wind farm. Environmentalists filing
suit against producers of clean renewable energy should consider
whether they haven't lost sight of the forest for the trees.
A large wind farm at an excellent site here in Maine was recently
blocked by 'environmentalists' protesting the development of the
area. It is probable that these are the same people clambering to
close the nuclear plant and block hydroelectric projects. I wonder
how they expect to block _everything_ and still have their
televisions work?
gps
Subject: Re: Ecological Economics and Entropy
From: dwnicol@ix.netcom.com(Dale W. Nicol )
Date: 18 Nov 1996 23:13:28 GMT
Vince: Perhaps your garden did indeed thrive due to your excellent and
personal attention. I suspect that your neighbor's failure was due to
the lack of same not the fact that he implemented chemical assistance.
You see, the safe and effective use of chemical tools requires every
bit the care and attention you gave your organic garden. Perhaps the
worst example of proper use of chemicals comes from home owners such as
your neighbor who tend to figure if one glug is good then two must be
really good. Commercial use of agricultural chemicals is much
different and in that setting I know that the economic win goes to
those who use all the tools available in a responsible way. Real
farmers don't use chemicals without cause simply because they cost
money and making money (not spending it) is what farming is all about.
On the other hand, when getting rid of weeds (or any other pest) that
compete with crops is the objective, real farmers determine the most
effective and most economical way to do that. Sometimes, that means
using farm labor to hand weed. Sometimes it means running a tractor
with a cultivator through the field. Still other times it means using
an herbicide. Every time a real farmer makes a decision to use a
chemical tool he weighs the alternatives. And yes, real farmers don't
always choose the chemical option but sometimes they do.
In <3290C986.68D4@ecosafe.com> "Vincent R. Clause"
writes:
>
>Mike Asher wrote:
>
>> In Medieval times, 90+% of the population was chronically
malnourished. A
>> man was deemed well off if he ate meat once a week. Most children
suffered
>> from rickets and other defiency conditions. Many castles and manor
homes
>> tossed trenchers (crusts of bread) and other dinner-table scraps to
hungry
>> people who clustered outside, who fought bitterly for line rights.
Often,
>> a government official would, upon their yearly visit to a village,
find
>> that starvation and disease had wiped out the entire populace
sometime in
>> the past year, with none the wiser.
>>
>> Beer was widely consumed, by children and adults, as water was too
>> dangerous to drink. When you did drink river water, you were taught
to
>> "strain" it between your teeth to remove the larger creatures found
>> naturally in it.
>>
>> Even the wealthy had their problems. Food poisoning was endemic,
fruits
>> and vegetables were unknown out of season, seafood was impossible
unless
>> you lived near the coast, and at thirty-five, you needed soft food
as your
>> teeth had all rotted out...unless an abcessed tooth killed you, as
was
>> quite common.
>>
>> This is the true world of 'organic' farming, biomass power, and
>> deindustrialization many environmentalists would have us return to.
I'd
>> prefer to work out our problems and stay here.
>>
>> --
>> Mike Asher
>> masher@tusc.net
>>
>> "We must make this an insecure an uninhabitable place for
capitalists and
>> their projects. This is the best contribution we can make towards
>> protecting the earth."
>> - Environmental organization 'Ecotage', Earth First! offshoot.
>
>
>Come on now Mike, you are starting to sound like one of the profits of
doom yourself.
>
>So, according to you, the impoverised conditions of medeval
civilization are the result of the lack
>of chemical fertalizers, and pesticides, and herbicides. Puuleeaase!
>
>I guess the dirty creeks of medeval days, were also to be the blame of
the naturalists, although I
>do not have a single clue why. Do you?
>
>The fat kings bad teeth are also the fault of the terroristic organic
gardeners. Watch out, they
>wait to smitten you with his safe and clean potions of herbs and
compost.
>
>I do not think I ever have heard such a poor analogy Mike. To compare
medeval filth to safe and
>natural horticulture is beyond reasonable comprehension. I guess the
baseball strike and every
>other bad thing that has occured these days is also the fault of these
simple and pure
>naturalistic thinkers.
>
>Seriously now, I practice organic gardening, because it is the
cheapest most sound method of
>horticulture I know. Growing plants through chemical means is
paramount to a person drinking a
>glass of prepared proteins and carbohydrates, and taking a couple of
pills, for years on end for
>every meal. See how long you stay fit on an artificial diet, and then
you will no longer wonder
>why this is not good for plants either.
>
>Answer me this. How is it that earlier this year, I had a census of
over 600 plants(most in pots)
>on my property, all organically grown, and all flourishing, while my
neighbors wasted umpteen
>dollars on chemicals that left them with yards lacking any natural
beauty? It may have somethings
>to do with a little TLC, a good substitute for chemicals any day.
Just Say No To Chemicals!
>
>Regards
>
>-
>Vince Clause - Inventor/Entrepreneur/Naturalist
>President - V R C Enterprises Inc.
>
>###################################################################
># ----> ----> http://www.ecosafe.com <---- <---- #
># Marketing Research*Product Design and Development*Consulting #
>#Systems Analysis, Design, Administration*Specialized Web Services#
># #
># Please visit our new FREE online magazine, #
># "The Amalgamated Web" #
># Premier issue http://www.ecosafe.com/taw/v1i1.htm #
># #
># _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/ _/_/_/_/ #
># _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ #
># _/ _/ _/_/_/ _/ _/_/_/ #
># _/_/ _/ _/ _/ _/ _/ #
># _/ @ _/ _/ @ _/_/_/ @ _/_/_/_/ @ #
># #
># V R C Enterprises Inc. E-Mail -> VRCE@Ecosafe.Com #
># 22111 Rockgate Drive Phone -> (713) 821-7313 #
># Spring, Texas 77373 V-Mail -> (713) 275-9692 #
># S U C C E S S I S A S S U C C E S S D O E S #
># ~*************~ ~***~ ~***~ ~*************~ ~*******~ #
>###############################################################1996
Subject: Re: CO_2 and Iron Fertilization
From: rmg3@access5.digex.net (Robert Grumbine)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 17:55:42 -0500
In article <19961118.142527.162@watson.ibm.com>,
James B. Shearer wrote:
> Len Evens asked for discussion of schemes to reduce atmospheric
>CO2 levels by fertilizing unproductive areas of the ocean with iron.
> One issue with such schemes which I have not seen discussed is
>the effect on the earth's albedo. I remember reading that one of the
>fertilization experiments produced a dramatic change in the visual
>appearance of the ocean's surface (from blue to green). How would this
>affect the ocean's albedo? How would the climate effects of albedo
>change compare to those of CO2 change if this scheme were adopted on
>a wide scale.
Most interesting idea! I'll wave my hands at it a bit:
The areas in which iron fertilization (aside: the things usually
referred to at nutrients are nitrate, phosphate, and silicate which
are present in the ocean at levels of micromoles per X (kg, I think),
iron, zinc, and others are micronutrients -- required in concentrations
of nanomoles per X) is thought to possibly be effective are along
(parts of) the equator and parts of the polar regions. The polar
regions get relatively little sunlight (but not ignorable, see
Grumbine, Weather and Forecasting, 9, 453-456, 1994) and albedo effects
will probably be dominated by sea ice response.
The equator, however, gets a lot of solar radiation. If the shift
in color is from blue to green, the albedo may have gone up. The
reason is that if other reflections have held constant, relatively
more green light is being reflected (to shift the color). If
this were the case, then adding to the CO2 sink effect would be
an albedo-driven cooling. But ... albedo is typically reported
to be _lower_ in biologically active areas, so it is unlikely that
the other reflections were fixed. Instead, what likely happened
is that absorption at the other frequencies increased. In this
case, the albedo effect would be a warming countering the cooling
of CO2 sequestration.
The magnitudes involved ... well, the canonical figure for
ocean albedo is 0.1 (for a sun high in the sky, appropriate for
the equator). The area of the equatorial ocean that is probably
amenable to the fertilization is ... w.a.g. 0.05 of the earth's
surface. Top of atmosphere insolation for the equator, call it
2 times planetary average. A modest change in albedo is, say,
10 percent of the value, or 0.01. And planetary average top
of atmosphere insolation is 340 W/m2. The 0.01 * 0.05 * 2 * 340
gives 0.34 W/m2 as a guess of the planetary average energy
equivalent being affected by the albedo. But ... the equator
is a very cloudy place. Much of the 340 is reflected before
reaching the surface (call it half). So we're at 0.17 W/m2.
The order of magnitude of the net radiative effect of doubled
CO2 is 4 W/m2. So the albedo effect is likely negligable
relative to the CO2 effect. There may be other, more subtle,
mechanisms by which the albedo change may mediate a climate
effect, but the back of my envelope is now full.
A note regarding the 10% sequestration: That is a limit of 10% of
the CO2 doubling (10% of either preindustrial or doubled CO2, i.e.,
30-60 ppm CO2). The 30-60 is not appreciably changed by going to higher
atmospheric CO2 levels, i.e., you can get 30-60 ppm for CO2 doubling
(or not changing CO2 at all) but you don't get 60-120 for CO2
quadrupling. When last I noticed, business as usual scenarios
were reaching 6 times preindustrial CO2 levels. 30-60 out of
1500-1800 probably won't do a whole lot.
--
Bob Grumbine rmg3@access.digex.net
Sagredo (Galileo Galilei) "You present these recondite matters with too much
evidence and ease; this great facility makes them less appreciated than they
would be had they been presented in a more abstruse manner." Two New Sciences
Subject: Re: Dangerous Solar? Then stay away from beaches...
From: swanton@river.gwi.net (george p swanton)
Date: 18 Nov 1996 18:00:21 -0500
>Again, you might wave off the difficulty of installing PV panels on
>roofs, but as a somewhat technically trained individual, I cannot.
>
>If you build a large collector area of very thin material, you can
>get away without reinforcements, but you put the expensive array at
>risk of being destroyed with a moderate wind. If you make the array
>strong enough to withstand a wind force equal to the code requirements
>in my area (110 MPH, I believe) you will add enough weight to the roof
>to require additional structural supports.
If the roof is able to withstand the specified wind load, sufficient
strength is already present, all that is required is to properly
couple the array to the roof. Photovoltaic tiles wood eliminate the
need for any auxilary support structure. Heck, tissue paper could
withstand a 110 MPH wind if it was glued to the roof!
>Will, though spent nuclear fuel is definitely a health hazard if not
>properly contained, I challenge you to document a single case of
>anyone in the United States receiving any kind of health impact from the
>thousands of metric tons that have already been produced.
>
>The simple fact is that the amount of material is small and that the
>people assigned to handle it know what they are doing well enough to
>prevent it from being dispersed to the environment.
People are generally not put at ease by the argument 'trust us,
we know what we're doing'. Statisticly the risk from release may
be low but the probability is not zero. It is this 'looming threat',
however improbable, that people resent.
>Solar
>cells have a role (I even own a solar powered calculator) but there is
>little likelyhood that they will ever have much of an impact on the
>world's consumption of thermal fuels like coal, oil, natural gas or
>uranium.
Perhaps, but the inevitable depletion of these finite resources will
have a definite impact. The fact is that neither the expectation that
the world will ever be completely PV powered or the position that
PV is a frivolous (or 'dangerous') technology is reasonable or prudent.
The world will eventually be forced to turn to renewable energy but
it can play an important role now. As has been stated, PV can nicely
help meet peak loads in sunbelt regions. The full value of this energy
has not been completely accounted here as in addition to reducing peak
generating requirements, distributed generation can help to stablize
the power grid, protecting it from oscilations. Distributed generation
also greatly reduces transmission losses, which are woefully high.
>Electric vehicles might even have a limited role, as long as you can
>figure out a way around the basic energy density problem of storage
>systems. As Thomas Edison (a man very much in favor of battery powered
>cars) said long ago, "The best battery I can find is a lump of coal."
>What he meant was that combustion energy sources have a basic chemical
>advantage over batteries in terms of weight. A combustion energy source
>only has to carry the carbon; the oxygen (which represents 75% of the
>weight of the oxidation reaction that releases heat) can be sucked
>in as needed. In contrast, a storage battery has to carry both
>of whatever chemical reactants are used to release energy, thus making
>the battery automatically heavier than an equivalent amount of
>combustion fuel.
True, but there are only so many lumps of coal and we cannot combust
them into the atmosphere at an ever increasing rate without serious
environmental repercussions. Whether you view the earth as 'fragile'
or 'tough and resilliant', it certainly isn't unbreakable nor its
resources infinite.
>Physical means of storing energy (compressed air, spinning flywheels,
>etc.) have so far proved not much better than chemical means.
Flywhells have come a long way, that they can begin to compare with
chemical means is quite an accomplishment actually.
>There is one way around these limitations, however. If you find a
>reaction that releases A LOT more energy per unit mass of reactants, you
>might have a chance of equaling or bettering the energy density of
>petroleum. When that reaction is found, then I will believe that
>a better battery will be possible after much development. So far,
>even that step has not been accomplished in the quest for a better
>battery.
This would be helpful, but it may never happen and is certainly not
expected to occur soon. What can be done immediately is to make
intelligent use of clean and renewable energy sources as regionally
available. More importantly, our current processes (transportation,
HVAC, appliances, etc) are woefully inefficient. Our energy 'needs'
could be met much more easily with renewables if efficiency (to
say nothing of the elimination of needless waste of resources)
were more of a priority on all fronts.
gps
Subject: Re: Chain to the Stars Re: Mars Colony and how.
From: Michael Martin-Smith
Date: Mon, 18 Nov 1996 23:48:20 +0000
In article <328FC8F3.1DAF@ix.netcom.com>, mfriesel@ix.netcom.com writes
>Michael Martin-Smith wrote:
>>
>....
>
>More fuel for the fire, though only mildly related to the point. But
>see? First we have one character looking for anti-moonies. Now you
>create a plethora of them as well without a single one actually
>appearing, (and no mention of McCarthy's anti-technologists).
>McCarthy says: 'Jump!'
>
>'Thrusting his head half-way into the binnacle, Ahab caught one
>glimpse of the compasses; his uplifted arm slowly fell; for a moment
>he almost seemed to stagger. Standing behind him Starbuck looked, and
>lo! the two compasses pointed East, and the Pequod was as infallibly
>going West.'
>
>Herman Melville Moby Dick
>
>> Obviously, there will be people who object to mining the moon, for a
>> vasriety of reasons
>> 1/ too costly - Apollo cost less than 12 month's consumption of nicotine
>> in the US, or (possibly) vodka by Khrushchev+Beria+ Stalin+Molotov+Brezh
>> nev+Yeltsin, let alone the rest of the Russians!
>> 2/ It might disfigure the Moon by open cast mining- our crater would not
>> look as pretty as Nature's!
>> 3/ We should stay on Earth anyhow, because God put us here, but somehow
>> slipped up and gave us the smarts and materials to figure out a way of
>> getting off it anyhow
>> 4/We're a mistake, and should allow ourselves to become extinct because
>> we're a rotten lot of plunderers, and unfit to live. Even if that was
>> all we are, suicide is not our decision to take - no religion says we
>> have the right to murder ourselves or our descendants, whether by
>> neglect or active genocide, nor have we the right to fail to develop to
>> our full potential as the generators of Life and Mind in the Universe,
>> if such is within our power.
>> 5/ In the game of Life, the rules say that we play to win, or else lose
>> the board..
>> 6/ we should solve our problems here before monkeying about up there.
>> Fair enough, but that is a false antithesis. We waste far more money on
>> cigarettes, drugs, warfare, and wasteful living than we ever could do on
>> the Moon; let's axe those first!
>> --
>> Michael Martin-Smith
Apart form Paul Dietz, the anti-moonies are probably mostly in other
newsgroups!!
I list some reasons given by them because I've seen or heard them over
the years in various guises. Their views are perfectly valid in their
own terms - just different. We'll have to learn to divide up the
Universe between us; let the antis inherit the Earth, and the rest of us
go to the stars - seems a sweet deal all round!!
--
Michael Martin-Smith
