Ken/Andrew et. al,, The use of BW would not be used as a 100% solution. It would be one part of a mixture of methods which would provide a flexible means of GE. I believe it is possible to have both dedicated areas of BW use and that of high photosynthetic activity within a regional mariculture installation. The percentage of the two in any one regional section would provide for surface temperature manipulation with a significant degree of precision, as well as. photosynthetic bio-production. The area under cultivation will be, in the long run, vast. Thus, flexibility is not only possible but necessary. One area within a gyre may need significant temperature reduction while another area would be used for intense photo related cultivation. And, that configuration could be adjusted per hour. The heavy use of BW during local noon would maximize the BWs' SRM use and help maintain surface water cooling. After local noon, BW would be scaled back. The discussion surrounding BW has been it's potential use as a means for SRM. In this mariculture context, it can be used as a local SRM, yet, it also has the benefit of being a direct water cooling tool.
Let me try to address Ken's input/questions. The statement of:*"We find that solar shading approaches can redistribute productivity in the water column but do not change total production." *I question if this statement takes into account the ability of mariculture operations to enhance local nutrient concentrations. Once the nutricline water is filtered for DIC and CO2 via photobioreactors, the water can be released to the surrounding surface waters. This water will still have significant amounts of nutrients. This transfer of filtered nutricline water to the surface, along with the subsurface supply of nutrients elevated due to surface cooling, should change the total production relative to simple surface cooling. *"The implicit question posed by the CBD is: if, in a high co2 world, solar geoengineering reduces the amount of temperature change by 90% or so, the amount of precipitation change by 70% or so, reduces sunlight by 2% or so (but increase diffuse radiation to 20% or so), will this overall protect or harm biodiversity?". *I have not looked at this type of question as it is primarily one associated with SSI and or MCB. IMHO, however, this type of question can only be answered with historical data. Large scale mariculture should be viewed through a different set of biodiversity related questions. The main question(s) would be waste related as opposed to being related to solar geoengineering. The first and foremost question(s) would be around defining "waste". Virtually all aspects of mariculture can be viewed as useful and thus not "waste". The second set of questions would be related to the ability of an operation to utilize the byproducts so as to avoid unnecessary "waste". These are all more along the lines of proper production protocols rather than questions concerning the global environmental reaction to the installations. Concerning the later, large scale mariculture can/should be designed to provide a highly flexible/adjustable tool for CO2 usage, as well as, regional surface water temperature modification. It's affect on biodiversity will be interesting as the gyres are remote aquatic deserts and may actually end up providing sanctuary for many endangered species. Marine life, as all life, will exploit any resorce nitch it can claim. Large scale mariculture will provide a large array of habitate and nutrients within areas which have been remarkable for their lack of habitat/nutrients. * * *"if the answer to the above question is unknown, will relevant experimentation do more to help or harm prospects for marine biodiversity?"* **That is an extremely important question in my mind. The first field trials/experimentation will be critical in not just establishing the merits of the science/engineering but will establish the media/public/policy view of the concept. That is why I believe the commodity production and biodiversity support aspect of this concept should be put forth as *primary objective intents, *with CO2 mitigation secondary. It will take a few years of expansion to get near the size which would approach GE significance. If the North Pacific Gyre is selected for the initial field trial, one symptom of the large scale mariculture operation gaining GE size would be the development of abnormal 'Pinapple Express' activities. During the ramp up time, space based assets would provide the PI team with predictive tools with which abnormal activity predictions can be developed. Other gyres would have their own regional symptoms related to large scale mariculture operations. If all seven gyres were to be industrialized, coordination between the seven would create a highly effective means to prevent catastrophic weather events such as super hurricanes, extream El Ninos and possibly polar warming. Best, Michael On Tuesday, November 5, 2013 2:00:51 PM UTC-8, Ken Caldeira wrote: > The basic point of this paper is not surprising but it is good to have it > in the literature: > > We find that solar shading approaches can redistribute productivity in > the water column but do not change total production. > > Typically there is a sub-surface chlorophyll maximum because over most of > the ocean organisms are more limited by nutrients than they are by light. > > The implicit question posed by the CBD is: if, in a high co2 world, solar > geoengineering reduces the amount of temperature change by 90% or so, the > amount of precipitation change by 70% or so, reduces sunlight by 2% or so > (but increase diffuse radiation to 20% or so), will this overall protect or > harm biodiversity? > > A subsidiary question is: if the answer to the above question is unknown, > will relevant experimentation do more to help or harm prospects for marine > biodiversity? > > > On Tuesday, November 5, 2013, Michael Hayes wrote: > >> Dr. Seitz et. al., >> >> I do expect that the complexity of predicting the response of *free >> swimming* photosynthetic organisms, propagated due to a large scale >> mariculture installations' passive cooling of the surface water, is such >> that their contribution to the overall maricultural operations' CO2 usage >> would/should be considered incidental until field trials can provide >> empirical data. >> >> The use of space based assets will be highly useful in the initial field >> trials. The paper: Mapping size-speciļ¬c phytoplankton primary production >> on a global scale <http://journalofmaps.com/student/10_01_Brewin.pdf> has >> been my primary reference on the imaging side of this concept. Such imaging >> may also prove useful in selecting installation locations. You referenced >> Hardman Montford et al., should I seek out more recent works of his? >> >> Also, the architecture of large scale mariculture installations would be >> web like structures most likely based upon hexagonal sections. This large >> scale infrastructure would provide an excellent support/distribution means >> for the use of Bright Water (BW). The use of BW, in itself, will have a >> significant cooling effect on the surface water which will, in turn, affect >> the nutricline depth. This would be especially true if the compressed air >> was cooled/piped through deep water before release. This use of Ocean >> Thermal Conversion (OTC) for direct surface cooling through BW seems to be >> an efficient use of resources. >> >> Best, >> >> Michael >> >> On Saturday, November 2, 2013 9:38:13 AM UTC-7, Russell Seitz wrote: >>> >>> The response of free swimmng marine photosynthetic organisms to >>> changes in the light fiels are complicated , because most utilize >>> upwelling and scattered light as well as the direct rays of the sun in >>> photosynthesis. The modeling results Hardman-Montford et al report recall >>> simulations run at the ERES summer school two years ago. >>> >>> On Friday, November 1, 2013 12:28:17 PM UTC-4, andrewjlockley wrote: >>>> >>>> http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/**news/story.aspx?id=1544&** >>>> cookieConsent=A<http://planetearth.nerc.ac.uk/news/story.aspx?id=1544&cookieConsent=A> >>>> >>>> Link above is plain English. Abstract below >>>> >>>> Impacts of light shading and nutrient enrichment geo-engineering >>>> approaches on the productivity of a stratified, oligotrophic ocean >>>> ecosystem. >>>> >>>> Authors >>>> >>>> Hardman-Mountford NJ, et al. Show all >>>> >>>> Journal >>>> >>>> J R Soc Interface. 2013 Oct 16;10(89):20130701. doi: >>>> 10.1098/rsif.2013.0701. Print 2013. >>>> >>>> Affiliation >>>> >>>> Plymouth Marine Laboratory, , Prospect Place, Plymouth PL1 3DH, UK. >>>> >>>> Abstract >>>> >>>> Geo-engineering proposals to mitigate global warming have focused >>>> either on methods of carbon dioxide removal, particularly nutrient >>>> fertilization of plant growth, or on cooling the Earth's surface by >>>> reducing incoming solar radiation (shading). Marine phytoplankton >>>> contribute half the Earth's biological carbon fixation and carbon export >>>> in >>>> the ocean is modulated by the actions of microbes and grazing communities >>>> in recycling nutrients. Both nutrients and light are essential for >>>> photosynthesis, so understanding the relative influence of both these >>>> geo-engineering approaches on ocean ecosystem production and processes is >>>> critical to the evaluation of their effectiveness. In this paper, we >>>> investigate the relationship between light and nutrient availability on >>>> productivity in a stratified, oligotrophic subtropical ocean ecosystem >>>> using a one-dimensional water column model coupled to a multi-plankton >>>> ecosystem model, with the goal of elucidating potential impacts of these >>>> geo-engineering approaches on ecosystem production. We find that solar >>>> shading approaches can redistribute productivity in the water column but >>>> do >>>> not change total production. Macronutrient enrichment is able to enhance >>>> the export of carbon, although heterotrophic recycling reduces the >>>> efficiency of carbon export substantially over time. Our results highlight >>>> the requirement for a fuller consideration of marine ecosystem >>>> interactions >>>> and feedbacks, beyond simply the stimulation of surface blooms, in the >>>> evaluation of putative geo-engineering approaches. >>>> >>>> PMID >>>> >>>> 24132201 [PubMed - in process] >>>> >>> -- >> 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. >> > > > -- > _______________ > Ken Caldeira > > Carnegie Institution for Science > Dept of Global Ecology > 260 Panama Street, Stanford, CA 94305 USA > +1 650 704 7212 [email protected] <javascript:> > http://dge.stanford.edu/labs/caldeiralab > https://twitter.com/KenCaldeira > > > -- 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.
