> Am I right to be concerned, or am I just ignorant of the literature? Regarding ocean albedo: I think this is true. The state-of-the-art ocean (CMIP5) climate models of which I am aware prescribe ocean albedo based on wavelength, zenith angle, and the direct/diffuse distinction, and neglect explicit dependence on biology and wind-speed (whitecaps/foam). However, biology (in terms of predicted chlorphyll concentration) is explicitly used to determine the penetration depth of radiation, which influences upper ocean stability.
On the other hand, most current ocean climate models include a biogeochemical component that explicitly represents carbon pools and fluxes to the deep ocean. As to whether there is reason to be concerned about these model limitations, it's likely that part of the blooms vs. no-blooms albedo effect is implicitly accounted for in the empirical data on which the employed parameterizations are based. That said, I think it's worth investigating whether "climatological" blooms could cause a non-negligible bias in the prescribed albedo. In my opinion it's more likely that neglect of the net effects wavy ocean surfaces on longwave emissivity are larger than shortwave effects of bloom albedo. But they are two entirely different effects which both should be addressed. Charlie -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/-/epOwqjTv6QMJ. 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.
