Andrew (cc list) Thanks for keeping this thread alive. I agree this biomass albedo effect is potentially important for both SRM and CDRt. I had prepared a response to your Sunday message and so will just also show it (below this new response).
I have not yet had time to get to the library to check the original sources, but can summarize my present thinking as:: a). The CDR annual carbon flux X (half carbon neutral and half carbon negative) from trying to harvest the Trichodesmium and using for Biochar purposes could be about (and gladly send the backup calcs and conversions): X (Gt C/yr) ~= .031 Gt C/100 Mha-yr * A (Mha) * P (% photosynthesis efficiency); Ex: X~= 10 ~= .031 * 40 * 8, where A ~= 40 Mha = global ocean area/1000 (designed to give 10 as the answer) and P = 8% as an intentionally optimistic guess for this apparently efficient "algae" b) I am not sure how to calculate a similar global impact on albedo. Optimitidally, one might achieve a 50% change in albedo for this small (1/1000) fraction of the ocean area. Others can advise how to put a price/value on this improvement. From a Biochar perspective, the unique feature of using Trichodesmium is that the albedo impact is beneficial and nothing (except possibly "Bright Water" bubbles) has been added to the system - only removals of undesirable material. More comments below.. ----- Original Message ----- From: "Andrew Lockley" <[email protected]> To: "geoengineering" <[email protected]> Sent: Tuesday, April 17, 2012 7:56:08 AM Subject: [geo] Re: Ocean albedo modification This image appears to show a clear albedo effect from blooms http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Phytoplankton_SoAtlantic_20060215.jpg 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. [RWL - a) I do not yet know how to identify the plankton part of this photo. I found a similar photo for Trichodesmium that I similarly do not know how to interpret. I think the lightest/whitest part of the photo is supposed to be where Trichodesmium does not exist. b) I am not assuming anything about OIF - which use seems to be of major concern to some. The biomass "mat" I propose harvesting is headed for on-shore energy and sequestration/soil dollar values. Presumably something akin to a tipping fee will also be available? c) Maybe production of pellets; maybe local production of a "drop-in" fuel and char instead?. 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. [RWL - I have a geologist friend who uses language like yours from the plant Azolla - but in the Arctic. I am more motivated by the possibilities for replacing fossil fuels and for soil improvement - from an amazingly small (~ 1/1000 ocean area ?) region. I am not sure that aeolian dust is responsible for the abnormal and objectionabloe Trichodesmium growth. My comments on your Sunday message (below) are: AL1: Scientific American article identifies AGW sea albedo effect. RWL1: And the effect is not one we want - a brownish algae "mat" absorbing more sunlight than the "whitecap" portion of a choppy sea - in a positive feedback mode (more mat = higher temperature = more mat = higher temperature, etc). I imagine there are opposite examples where we can increase albedo using ocean biota.. It is not clear we agree on what is happening or how to exploit the recent changes. AL2: "This potentially suggests ocean fertilization and similar manipulations could target albedo, not CO2. " RWL2a: First to modify your observation (maybe not understanding your point) - as this particular albedo change with Trichodesmium is presumably one we wish to discourage rather than encourage. Maybe ocean fertilization is appropriate, but mainly I think the SRM (albedo) opportunity is to harvest the Trichodesmium - and thereby breakup the "bright water" - preventing the mat. RWL2b: The harvested mat material presumably can be used as can any other form of biomass to produce Biochar - with the usual three monetary flows: energy, soil improvement, and carbon sequestration . This could apparently achieve many (see above simple equation) gigatons of new raw material for Biochar. This particular species is one of the few also converting atmospheric N2, so the resultant Biochar will have extra economic fertilizer value. RWL2c: Just to emphasize - this apparently could be both SRM and CDR - and it is pretty hard to find many examples of such. Only changing to plant species that are a lighter green for Biochar feedstock have this similar geoengineering duality AL3: "Awesome possibilities. Geoengineers, start your computers." RWL3: OK - I have a simple summary equation above and can supply one "computer (really calculator) CDR effort. The NPP of the ocean is about 60 Gt C/yr. It sounds like Trichodesmium may be a considerable contributor to that total. Anyone able to give a specific worldwide total Gt C or ocean area (mostly interested in the portion in the tropics) for this species? [My variable "A"] And give the photosynthetic efficiency for this particular "algae" species under "average" and peak conditions? {My variable "P"] I believe the harvesting and conversion technology possibilities are well enough known today. It might be best to produce a liquid fuel on board a number of 24-7 slowly cruising special-purpose harvesting platforms that follow and breakup the (huge?) existing "blooms". I say "huge" because of the estimate of 2 degrees of temperature rise from this one species. But I have not yet read the fundamental papers. My rough calculations say we can offset (with equal parts carbon neutral and carbon negative) about 10 Gt C/yr today's annual fossil carbon inputs on a small percentage (0.1% or 400,000 sqkm [a square with side length of about 630 km) of the earth's ocean surface area. I compute this using 8% conversion efficiency, an annual average tropics solar input of 300 watts/sqm, and a desired total (neutral and negative carbon) with an assumed energy/carbon ratio of 30 GJ/tonne C. If one central ship/platform could handle a "bloom" square with side length of 1 km, one would need about 40000 of them. No guarantee these are compatible, but it is possible that each platform could also house an OTEC unit - also capable of 24-7 operation. Or - is there a glitch - no realistic (combined) geoengineering (Biochar) option, such as described above for this apparently serious positive temperature feedback biology? Ron (end of my response to the following) A On Apr 15, 2012 5:22 PM, "Andrew Lockley" < [email protected] > 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 Warming http://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." -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. 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 Groups "geoengineering" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected]. To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected]. For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering?hl=en.
