><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
If you reply to this message, it will go to all FISH-SCI members.
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>

Thank you for the information. I put this forward because I thought the CO2 
would be much reduced with depth. There is water pressure which I assumed 
would lessen a dissolved gas and also just the sheer distance from the 
surface where the dissolving takes place. BTW it sound like plankton take 
much the same mineral nutrients as plants on land. Thus some of the lessons 
from soil remineralization may be applicable to ocean mineralization.

PtP

----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Trevor J. Kenchington" <[log in to unmask]>
To: "Pay_the_Piper" <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Friday, June 22, 2007 3:48 PM
Subject: Re: Floating atmospheric regulators


> Most of the ocean has a well-mixed surface layer, with essentially 
> constant temperature, salinity and chemical concentrations  throughout. 
> When photosynthesis is very active, CO[2] concentration  may drop below 
> the immediate surface but that only slows the rate of  photosynthesis. The 
> process will continue until some nutrient runs  out in the sunlit layers. 
> Sometimes the limiting nutrient is nitrate,  sometimes phosphate, 
> sometimes silicate and sometime iron or another  micronutrient. I have 
> never heard of marine photosynthesis being  limited by a lack of CO[2].
>
> There is anyway a subsurface supply of CO[2] from respiration. Also, 
> seawater is a complex buffering mixture containing a lot of  carbonate, in 
> addition to the bicarbonate that is dissolved CO[2]. I  have long 
> forgotten the details but I suspect that any deficiency in  bicarbonate 
> (i.e CO[2]) would be made up by dissolution of the  plentiful calcium 
> carbonate. Maybe I am wrong on that one too. It has  been a long time 
> since I struggled with chemical oceanography.
>
>
> If you want to get carbon out of the atmosphere and into the ocean,  the 
> spraying with iron still seems the most promising approach.  Another one 
> you might consider is generating power by pulling deep  water to the 
> surface. That was much discussed in the 1970s but never  implemented --  
> partly because it would have horrible ecological  consequences. But, at 
> least in theory, you could get lots of  electrical generation while also 
> raising huge volumes of nutrient- rich deep water into the sunlit levels.
>
>
> Trevor Kenchington
>
>
>
> On 22-Jun-07, at 6:09 PM, Pay_the_Piper wrote:
>
>> But don't you think the direct and continuous interface of surface 
>> organisms with 100% air rather than highly diluted air would be  more 
>> effective?
>>
>> PtP
>
>
> -- 
> No virus found in this incoming message.
> Checked by AVG Free Edition. Version: 7.5.472 / Virus Database: 
> 269.9.6/862 - Release Date: 6/22/2007 3:04 PM
>
> 

><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>
To leave the Fish-Sci list, Send the message "SIGNOFF FISH-SCI" to:
        mailto:[log in to unmask]
   Web page at http://segate.sunet.se/archives/fish-sci.html
><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><> ><>