Hi Nathan In these two reports on DMSP and DMS, there is no mention of which species of phytoplankton produces DMS -
http://www.whoi.edu/oceanus/viewArticle.do?id=45946 http://www.whoi.edu/cicor/page.do?pid=19476&tid=282&cid=40014 The search for the 'right' phytoplankton has to go on ... regards Bhaskar On Apr 22, 10:34 pm, Nathan Currier <natcurr...@gmail.com> wrote: > Hi, Bhaskar - > > You wrote - > > "Based on a combined reading of all papers on the subject I understand > the following - > Coccolithophores increase Albedo and DMS production and > Diatoms sequester more carbon by falling to ocean bed." > > I used to believe something like that, too. > But actually the primary arctic DMS producer is a diatom, Nitzschia > frigida.http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nitzschia > > There's a very interesting ppt from Los Alamos on the arctic DMS > situation: > > Biogeochemistry in the Los Alamos National Laboratory (LANL) > modelwww.whoi.edu/fileserver.do?id=76944&pt=2&p=83808 > > After I first saw it I proposed something here about possibly trying > to use it > for arctic geoengineering purposes, but no one responded at all at the > time..... > Maybe you'll be interested in it now? > > All best, > > Nathan > > On Apr 20, 10:36 pm, M V Bhaskar <bhaskarmv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > Dear Dr Vivien > > > You said - > > > > Also, how could you ensure the "right" phytoplankton would bloom to > > > ensure the albedo effect. > > > This is the core issue. > > > Based on a combined reading of all papers on the subject I understand > > the following - > > Coccolithophores increase Albedo and DMS production and > > Diatoms sequester more carbon by falling to ocean bed. > > > Coccolithophores have a calcium carbonate shell and Diatoms a silica > > shell. > > > Since 2005 we are successfully growing Diatoms in open waters in large > > lakes, using our silica based micro nutrient. > > This works on the principle that since Diatoms require silica, they > > consume it and grow rapidly and dominate the water as long as it is > > fertilized with this product. > > > This product also contains calcium, but only a very small quantity - > > the amount required for photosynthesis. > > > Perhaps if we increase the calcium to the maximum extent possible, we > > can make Coccolithophores consume it and bloom rapidly and also > > sustain the bloom for a long period of time, through continuous > > fertilization. > > > Thus we can achieve a more targeted phytoplankton bloom, by developing > > products / fertilizers that focus on each species / group of > > phytoplankton. > > > best regards > > > Bhaskarwww.nualgi.com/new > > > On Apr 18, 10:11 pm, Ken Caldeira <kcalde...@carnegie.stanford.edu> > > wrote: > > > > I think Chris Viven has it right. > > > > But, if you are still interested in pursuing this, Toby Tyrrell has looked > > > into this a bit. > > > >http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/optics.html > > > > On Wed, Apr 18, 2012 at 6:16 PM, Andrew Lockley > > > <andrew.lock...@gmail.com>wrote: > > > > > I have been advised to use GNU Octave for image processing. My guess is > > > > the the best way to do this would be to draw a rectangle over the bloom > > > > and > > > > compare it to a control rectangle elsewhere in the image. However, a > > > > pixel > > > > by pixel comparison would also be useful, as it would better display the > > > > range of albedo. Pixel comparisons would be prone to much greater > > > > error, as > > > > I might pick a lucky pixel out. > > > > > I have no experience of this kind of thing at all, so any tips or > > > > comments > > > > are welcome. At this stage I'm just looking to get some back of > > > > envelope > > > > calculations for the list, not get anything you could publish. > > > > > One particular concern I have is that the infra red (particularly the > > > > near > > > > infra red) will be very significant. Obviously, this won't show up on a > > > > photo. Does anyone have any ideas as to how to treat this? > > > > > A > > > > On Apr 18, 2012 1:20 PM, "Chris" <chris.viv...@cefas.co.uk> wrote: > > > > >> Andrew, > > > > >> If you search Google Images for 'ocean fertilisation' you will find a > > > >> number of satellite images of blooms from ocean fertilisation > > > >> experiments. Here are a couple of examples: > > > > >>http://disc.sci.gsfc.nasa.gov/oceancolor/additional/science-focus/oce... > > > >>http://www.csa.com/discoveryguides/oceangard/overview.php > > > > >> Also, if you search Google Images for 'Phytoplankton bloom' you will > > > >> find plenty of images and there is a particularly good one from the > > > >> western English Channel of a very bright coccolithophore bloom on this > > > >> page:http://www.noc.soton.ac.uk/soes/staff/tt/eh/satbloompics.html. > > > > >> However, don't get too carried away with the possibility of generating > > > >> phytoplankton blooms for their albedo effect. They would have all the > > > >> potential side-effects of ocean fertilisation and since phytoplankton > > > >> blooms are transient events, I find it difficult to see how you could > > > >> maintain a significant albedo effect over time. Also, how could you > > > >> ensure the "right" phytoplankton would bloom to ensure the albedo > > > >> effect. > > > > >> Chris. > > > > >> On Apr 17, 2:56 pm, Andrew Lockley <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > >> > This image appears to show a clear albedo effect from blooms > > > > >> >http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phytoplankton_SoAtlantic_20060215. > > > >> .. > > > > >> > Does anyone have a set of high quality ocean iron fertilization > > > >> > images > > > >> > which can be formally evaluated for albedo? I think this would be a > > > >> > very > > > >> > interesting study. > > > > >> > Maybe we have missed a trick on OIF? Maybe It's actually an albedo > > > >> > SRM > > > >> > method cunningly disguised as CDR. > > > > >> > Interestingly this would make a powerful negative feedback which > > > >> > could > > > >> > explain the decent into glacials, as aeolian dust fluxes into the > > > >> southern > > > >> > ocean changed albedo, causing feedbacks which caused further cooling > > > >> and > > > >> > drying as well as carbon drawdown. This would then lead to more dust > > > >> flux, > > > >> > etc. > > > > >> > Hopefully someone can check whether the above is right or not. > > > > >> > A > > > >> > On Apr 15, 2012 5:22 PM, "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> > > > >> wrote: > > > > >> > > Scientific American article identifies AGW sea albedo effect. This > > > >> > > potentially suggests ocean fertilization and similar manipulations > > > >> could > > > >> > > target albedo, not CO2. Awesome possibilities. Geoengineers, start > > > >> your > > > >> > > computers. > > > > >> > > A > > > > >> > > *sciam* Ocean-Borne Microbes May Help Speed Warminghttp:// > > > >> t.co/NDQd2jm4 > > > > >> > > Ocean-Borne Microbes May Help Speed Warming > > > > >> > > The proliferation of cyanobacteria in oceans may accelerate warming > > > > >> > > By Lucas Laursen | April 15, 2012 | > > > > >> > > Trichodesmium > > > > >> > > Image: Courtesy of Elizabeth C. Sargent/University of Southampton > > > >> > > and > > > >> > > National Oceanography Center, Southampton > > > > >> > > On their own, cyanobacteria are tiny photosynthetic organisms > > > >> floating in > > > >> > > the sea. But when they join forces, linking together into chains > > > >> > > and > > > >> then > > > >> > > mats by the millions, they can become a threat. Before long, the > > > >> bacteria > > > >> > > change the color of the sea’s surface and even soften the > > > >> > > wind-tossed > > > >> chop. > > > >> > > One study of cyanobacteria, also known as blue-green algae, > > > >> > > although > > > >> they > > > >> > > are not algae, predicted that rising sea temperatures could help > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > already widespread creatures expand their territory by more than 10 > > > >> > > percent. Now researchers are asking whether mats of cyanobacteria > > > >> might > > > >> > > themselves affect local sea temperatures, thus creating a powerful > > > >> feedback > > > >> > > loop. > > > > >> > > Cyanobacteria are ubiquitous. They spew enough oxygen into the > > > >> atmosphere > > > >> > > to dictate the current mix of gases we breathe. They also > > > >> > > compete—with > > > >> > > great success—for nutrients such as nitrogen and phosphorus. When > > > >> > > cyanobacteria bloom, it is often at the cost of neighboring species > > > >> such as > > > >> > > fish or other phytoplankton. So if cyanobacteria are shaping the > > > >> > > temperature of their growing patch of the ocean to favor themselves > > > >> over > > > >> > > cold-water critters, researchers want to know how they are doing it > > > >> and > > > >> > > what to expect next, says climate scientist Sebastian Sonntag of > > > >> > > the > > > >> > > University of Hamburg in Germany. > > > > >> > > Sonntag and his colleagues have adapted a computer model that > > > >> describes > > > >> > > the mixing of layers of seawater to take into account two kinds of > > > >> changes > > > >> > > produced by the cyanobacterium Trichodesmium: more light absorption > > > >> and > > > >> > > less choppy waves. The updated model predicted sea-surface warming > > > >> > > of > > > >> up to > > > >> > > two degrees Celsius because of light absorption. The wave dampening > > > >> > > appeared to affect local temperatures by about one degree C. > > > > >> > > This may be the first such study of algal blooms in the ocean,says > > > >> aquatic > > > >> > > microbiologist Jef Huisman of the University of Amsterdam, who has > > > >> studied > > > >> > > light absorption by cyanobacteria in lakes. Both Sonntag and > > > >> > > Huisman > > > >> say > > > >> > > they would like to ask oceanographers to measure seawater > > > >> > > temperature > > > >> where > > > >> > > cyanobacteria grow and in nearby empty areas to test the new > > > >> > > model’s > > > >> > > predictions and to improve future versions. > > > > >> > > This article was published in print as "Blue Bacteria in Bloom."- > > > >> Hide quoted text - > > > > >> > - Show quoted text - > > > > >> -- > > > >> You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > > >> Groups > > > >> "geoengineering" group. > > > >> To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. > > > >> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to > > > >> geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. > > > >> For more options, visit this group at > > > >>http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en. > > > > >> -- > > > > You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google > > ... > > read more » -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to geoengineering@googlegroups.com. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to geoengineering+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
