List (and Andrew and other ccs) In response to Andrew's comment (repeated in full below), Russell this AM sent me the following (in full) with (my presumption) an intent to forward to the list .
"The ' optical density' to which Andrew Locksley's response refers, ( the term is scarcely apposite, as half the light is scattered forward) would, in the case of doubling the water column albedo , reduce the light flux for photosynthesis by ~ 7%, a small fraction of the attenuation marine biota experience on cloudy days or when surface reflection of sunlight rises in consequence of wind-driven whitecaps and the microbubbles they create. Many organisms react to such natural changes by swimming up and down, and few have an optimal photosynthetic compensation depth of zero . I suggest he read the sections of my paper discussing the possible consequences - and the need for experiments to quantify them . As to his view " that it may just not work! ", the paper's figures, like the attached video clip, suggest otherwise. As does the mere fact that natural ocean microbubbles already contribute measurably to Earth's albedo. The ecological impacts, energy costs, variability of microbubble lifetime with natural water surfactancy and other quantitative factors of course all remain to be discovered. It seems apparent from this exchange that the technique's very existence may require some rethinking of what 'mitigation' means in practice, but the prime focus of 'bright water ' remains water conservation in man made bodies of water , not geoengineering in open ecosystems. I sent the wmv. clip showing the ten-ton water pool brightening demonstration to Locksley, and will try to attach it here , bandwidth permitting. End Russell's e-mail today - responding to Andrew's message below RWL: I have decided the above-mentioned wmv video clip (a bit more than 1 minute and almost 10 MB) should not be sent to the full list, but rather be available upon request from Andrew (if received), Russell or myself. The clip showed what appears to be a tank of 2-3 meter width and length and approaching a meter deep, with four bubble forming nozzles, which "brightens" the tank considerably in less than a minute. No data given on size or longevity of the bubbles Ron ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lockley" <andrew.lock...@gmail.com> To: rongretlar...@comcast.net Cc: "geoengineering" <geoengineering@googlegroups.com>, "Russell Seitz" <russellse...@gmail.com>, gorm...@waitrose.com Sent: Thursday, April 14, 2011 2:21:26 AM Subject: Re: [geo] Fw: Scientists should communicate: the methane time bomb A very informative comparison, thanks. The two main issues with bright water are the strong localized impacts on marine micro environment / food chain and also the simple problem that it may just not work! Assessing the former cannot be properly achieved until the latter is established, as the dwell time of bubbles has a critical effect on local optical density A On 14 Apr 2011 02:52, < rongretlar...@comcast.net > wrote: > > List (w ccs) > > Dr. Seitz (not a member of the Geoenineering list) has sent me the following > (my added numbering should be #'sB 9-B11), with the category 1c <snip a lot - not related to the above> -- 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.
