If I understand correctly, the proposed process has occurred naturally at fractions of the rates of deposit needed to remove the legacy carbon load. So while we know the oceans and sea-based food chains are not majorly disrupted at those rates, we do not know how the rates being proposed here would affect these things. Oceans are already teetering on the edge of their ability to support familiar lifeforms due to increased temperature, acidification, reduction in freshwater breeding grounds and saltwater marshes, and over fishing (perhaps not exhaustive). So what do we know about the overall oceanic ecosystem and its ability to thrive under the proposed treatment rather than suffer major collapse?
Because major interventions like that being proposed could have high impact unanticipated side effects, it would probably be wise to have a stable of solutions applied at lower levels of intensity in case one or more turn out to be infeasible or have intolerable side effects.
We know the oceans are teetering, and we know that they also, within the last century or they supported something like 100 times the whale population, and times the population of the larger fish. I wonder about what we can learn about these historical levels that would inform our attempts to restore them - prudently, swiftly, safely.
Hi Mark. Sorry I’m not seeing your comment until now. I suggest reading The Most Important Fish in the Sea by H. Bruce Franklin. It provides a very good explanation for the collapse of so many (interdependent and co-dependent) species. Would love to know what you think of it. Personally, I couldn’t put it down!
These are exactly the kinds of cautions that need to be engaged to undertake OIF responsibly. This movement (this planet) needs more people like you. Stay tuned, ok?
And that's why we need pilots immediately! And to be monitored so any unanticipated consequences can be dealt with. You watch and course-correct or halt as needed. The iron doesn't linger long--a couple of months in some cases. So you can just shut things down if something goes awry. Also remember that none of the original field expeditions - 13 - actually observed anything detrimental. Not a thing.
@caroledouglis I have no objections to trials except that I can confidently predict that their evaluation criteria will be too narrowly scoped to detect or adequately weigh impacts beyond carbon sequestration efficacy or short time scale impacts to local natural infrastructure and life forms of all types and sizes. These types of studies need to consider metrics across social, economic, and environmental realms developed and agreed upon by a wide range of stakeholders representing all relevant demographics and interests. This is one of the goals of #HolisticDecisionMaking developed by @AllanSavory. How can this viewpoint be brought to the attention of appropriate audiences?
It seems to me that geoengineering is a bogey man here! People, me sometimes, are afraid to mess with Mother Nature. Obviously we have massively played with her in very destructive ways. How can you assure the scientists giving counsel to President Biden that this science is good enough for now, and safe enough to try? After all, we are running out of time.
280 ppm should be our target and we need your ships at least five of them 10 thousand tn bulk carriers with 2 iron canons mounted to the rear , spraying iron into the ocean , into the oceans gyros areas so it can dispurse to the rest of the oceans , SMASH THOSE GYRO<S PETER
If I understand correctly, the proposed process has occurred naturally at fractions of the rates of deposit needed to remove the legacy carbon load. So while we know the oceans and sea-based food chains are not majorly disrupted at those rates, we do not know how the rates being proposed here would affect these things. Oceans are already teetering on the edge of their ability to support familiar lifeforms due to increased temperature, acidification, reduction in freshwater breeding grounds and saltwater marshes, and over fishing (perhaps not exhaustive). So what do we know about the overall oceanic ecosystem and its ability to thrive under the proposed treatment rather than suffer major collapse?
Because major interventions like that being proposed could have high impact unanticipated side effects, it would probably be wise to have a stable of solutions applied at lower levels of intensity in case one or more turn out to be infeasible or have intolerable side effects.
We know the oceans are teetering, and we know that they also, within the last century or they supported something like 100 times the whale population, and times the population of the larger fish. I wonder about what we can learn about these historical levels that would inform our attempts to restore them - prudently, swiftly, safely.
Hi Mark. Sorry I’m not seeing your comment until now. I suggest reading The Most Important Fish in the Sea by H. Bruce Franklin. It provides a very good explanation for the collapse of so many (interdependent and co-dependent) species. Would love to know what you think of it. Personally, I couldn’t put it down!
These are exactly the kinds of cautions that need to be engaged to undertake OIF responsibly. This movement (this planet) needs more people like you. Stay tuned, ok?
And that's why we need pilots immediately! And to be monitored so any unanticipated consequences can be dealt with. You watch and course-correct or halt as needed. The iron doesn't linger long--a couple of months in some cases. So you can just shut things down if something goes awry. Also remember that none of the original field expeditions - 13 - actually observed anything detrimental. Not a thing.
@caroledouglis I have no objections to trials except that I can confidently predict that their evaluation criteria will be too narrowly scoped to detect or adequately weigh impacts beyond carbon sequestration efficacy or short time scale impacts to local natural infrastructure and life forms of all types and sizes. These types of studies need to consider metrics across social, economic, and environmental realms developed and agreed upon by a wide range of stakeholders representing all relevant demographics and interests. This is one of the goals of #HolisticDecisionMaking developed by @AllanSavory. How can this viewpoint be brought to the attention of appropriate audiences?
It seems to me that geoengineering is a bogey man here! People, me sometimes, are afraid to mess with Mother Nature. Obviously we have massively played with her in very destructive ways. How can you assure the scientists giving counsel to President Biden that this science is good enough for now, and safe enough to try? After all, we are running out of time.
280 ppm should be our target and we need your ships at least five of them 10 thousand tn bulk carriers with 2 iron canons mounted to the rear , spraying iron into the ocean , into the oceans gyros areas so it can dispurse to the rest of the oceans , SMASH THOSE GYRO<S PETER