The use of BW in conjunction with microbes may to be worth looking at; as the two can be deployed without conflict with each other and they both may address dissolved CH4. The introduction of copepods to consume the microbes may help keep things in balance as well as provide the local biota with a food supply useful to a wider range of life. Also, mat forming algae can be factored into this line of thought.
On Saturday, August 24, 2013 10:51:19 AM UTC-7, Russell Seitz wrote: > > > Contrary to what Mark writes , microbubbles deployed at the volume > concentrations required to cool water cannot "be thought of as a foam" > because: > > > 1. They do not rise to reach the surface, because their vertical > stagnation velocity is smaller than convective water motion - they remaine > dispersed in the mixed layer much as cloud of comparably small water > dropletss are suspended in the sky. > > > 2. In efficient dispersion the sum of the microbubbles' Mie scattering > cross sections only adds up to a small multiple of the surface area being > cooled-- foams are floating three dimensional rafts, not two dimensional > bubble lattices. > > rereading the 'bright water' paper should clarify things further- > microbubbles ned to be developed on the scale of cooling ponds and other > reservoirs before they can be seriously evaluated for Arctic ice > conservation. > > > The paper's primary aim is local and regional water conservation, not > global geoengineering.. > > -- 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.
