I meant the net ocean CO2 sink is about 7 GT CO2/yr (or 2 GT C/yr).  - Greg



>________________________________
> From: "Rau, Greg" <[email protected]>
>To: "[email protected]" <[email protected]>; 
>"[email protected]" <[email protected]> 
>Cc: "[email protected]" <[email protected]> 
>Sent: Sunday, June 30, 2013 9:02 AM
>Subject: RE: [geo] Re: (Ocean pipes) The Science of Climate and 
>Geo-engineering… and more David Brin Ethical Technology
> 
>
>
> 
>Michael, 
>You say, "No bubbling of CO2 has ever been reported in field trials." Trust 
>me, ocean upwelling is a major source of atmospheric CO2, degassing >300 GT 
>CO2/yr. Fig 2.2.9 in the attached is what I often use to illustrate the very 
>elevated pCO2 in upwelled surface waters relative to the atmosphere and the 
>rapid degassing to air  that therefore takes place (sans bubbles). Fortunately 
>for us, such leakage globally is slightly more than countered by CO2 
>ingassing, making the ocean a small net CO2 sink of about 2 GT/yr. 
>
>
>If you are going to artificially, vertically stir the ocean your are going to 
>increase this degassing, so you had better hope that the nutrients also 
>upwelled to the surface indeed stimulate enough photosynthesis to counter that 
>CO2 loss to the atmosphere. That won't happen if nutrients are vertically 
>subducted out of the photic zone before algae consume them, if the biomass 
>formed is not rapidly sunk into the deep ocean and hopefully buried in 
>sediments, if the algae are grazed by zooplankton and the carbon respired back 
>to CO2 in surface waters, etc. All of these processes are very tricky to 
>accurately quantify and integrate over 4 dimensions (e.g., see attached), 
>meaning that whether or not you have created a net air CO2 sink is likely to 
>be highly uncertain.  The required field experiments and sink verification 
>would keep oceanographers employed for decades.  
>
>
>I think a more obvious and certain enterprise in our narrowing window of 
>opportunity would be to study enhanced air CO2 removal via ocean chemistry 
>modification and not ask altered ocean biology (or physics) to do the heavy 
>lifting. Actually, by strategically adding alkalinity to the naturally 
>upwelling and degassing regions of the ocean (above), one would reduce the 
>ocean's CO2 degassing and hence the air's CO2 burden without doing any air CO2 
>capture/removal, as discussed here:  
>http://www.pnas.org/content/early/2013/05/30/1222358110.full.pdf
>
>
>-Greg
>
> 
>From: [email protected] [[email protected]] on 
>behalf of Michael Hayes [[email protected]]
>Sent: Saturday, June 29, 2013 12:26 PM
>To: [email protected]
>Subject: [geo] Re: (Ocean pipes) The Science of Climate and Geo-engineering… 
>and more David Brin Ethical Technology
>
>
>David,
>
>
>Here are a few links I pulled up from past discussions and posts on this 
>overall subject. 
> 
>Deepwelling: 
>https://groups.google.com/d/msg/geoengineering/eValFNH8IQY/lJNWKARxs88J
>
>
>Further, the cultivation of algae, in conjunction with tubes, provides a 
>significant counter to DIC. No bubbling of CO2 has ever been reported in field 
>trials. I found the following statement does not reflect the views of Gao 
>et.al..
>
>
>“The concept is flawed,” says Scott Doney, a marine chemist at WHOI. 
>He says it neglects the fact that deeper waters with high nutrients 
>also generally contain a lot of dissolved inorganic carbon, including 
>dissolved CO2. Bringing these waters to the lower pressures of the 
>surface would result in the CO2 bubbling out into the air."
>
>
>
>"Use of Macroalgae for marine Biomass Production and CO2 remediation" Gao et 
>al. J.A.P. 1994
>Please see page 52, second column, 1st paragraph. 
>mel.xmu.edu.cn/upload_paper/201155112811-wse806.pdf
>
>
>On the statement: "So ocean fertilization experiments should start where 
>strong currents can disperse the 
>plankton blooms.  So let's try some of the more natural-like layer 
>mixing or bottom stirring proposals. And let's see if we can make 
>another Grand Banks somewhere."  
>
>
>There is the issue of incomplete sequestration of the biomass in such "strong 
>currents". Would it not be better to pump the biomass down (plow it under) 
>into a deep valley, which has no current, where the undecomposed biomass could 
>be sequestered for geological times? 
>
>
>On the statement:  "It does not seem to have occurred to 
>anyone that there might be other places on Earth that have almost the 
>right conditions and that might be tipped into similar fecundity with 
>just a little help." 
>
>
>The global commercial fishing industry has, at this time, covered every 
>hectare within that category. Those areas that come even close to being viable 
>for being "tipped" are highly valued and protected as nurseries. 
>
>
>I believe the best place for ocean pipes/algaeculture/sequestration is the 
>North Pacific Gyre. Hopefully, we would be able to sequester at least some of 
>the trash in the gyre along with mountains of seaweed. 
>
>
>Best,
>
>
>Michael 
>
>
>
>
>
-- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>"geoengineering" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>email to [email protected].
>To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
>
-- 
>You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
>"geoengineering" group.
>To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an 
>email to [email protected].
>To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
>Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
>For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
> 
> 
>
>
>

-- 
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups 
"geoengineering" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email 
to [email protected].
To post to this group, send email to [email protected].
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/geoengineering.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.


Reply via email to