A microbe albedo effect for ocean sunlight absorption

From MIT, something surprising. Like alignment of iron atoms in a magnet, microbes in seawater can align and change the albedo. It makes me wonder how much seawater can be warming by light absorption in ENSO events, which change currents. Perhaps there is a contribution, I don’t know, but it is very interesting.

Scientists say ocean currents cause microbes to filter light

Adding particles to liquids to make currents visible is a common practice in the study of fluid mechanics, one that was adopted and perfected by artist Paul Matisse in sculptures he calls Kalliroscopes. Matisse’s glass-enclosed liquid sculptures contain an object whose movement through the liquid creates whorls that can be seen only because elongated particles trailing the object align with the direction of the current; light reflects off the particles, making the current visible to the viewer.

Researchers at MIT recently demonstrated that this same phenomenon is responsible for the swirling patterns scientists typically see when they agitate a flask containing microbes in water; many microbes are themselves elongated particles that make the whorls visible. More importantly, they say this phenomenon occurs in the ocean when elongated microbes caught in a current align horizontally with the ocean surface, affecting how much light goes into the ocean and how much bounces off as backscatter.

Because many ocean microbes, like large phytoplankton, have either an elongated shape or live in communities of long chains, this orientation to ocean currents could have a substantial effect on ocean light — which in turn influences photosynthesis and phytoplankton growth rates — as well as on satellite readings of light backscatter used to inform climate models or assess algal blooms.

In a quiescent ocean, phytoplankton are randomly oriented and light filters through easily. This random arrangement is usually assumed in models of light propagation in the ocean and in satellite readings. But fluid flow can change things.

“Even small shear rates can increase backscattering from blooms of large phytoplankton by more than 30 percent,” said Roman Stocker, Professor of Civil and Environmental Engineering at MIT and lead author on a paper about this work. “This implies that fluid flow, which is typically neglected in models of marine optics, may exert an important control on light propagation, influencing the rates of carbon fixation and how we estimate these rates via remote sensing.”

Another consideration is microbial size. Very small microbes (less than 1 micrometer in diameter) don’t align with the ocean current no matter what their shape. “These very small things don’t align because they are too vigorously kicked around by water molecules in an effect called Brownian motion,” said Stocker, who studies the biomechanics of the movements of ocean microbes, often in his own micro-version of a Kalliroscope called microfluidics. He recreates an ocean environment in microfluidic devices about the size of a stick of gum and uses videomicroscopy to trace and record the microbes’ movements in response to food and current.

In this case, however, the research methodology was observation, followed by mathematical modeling (much of which was handled by graduate student Marcos, who created a model that coupled fluid mechanics with optics), and subsequent experimentation carried out by graduate students Mitul Luhar and William Durham using a tabletop-sized device.

But the impetus for the research was an observance of swirling microbes in a flask of water and a question posed by Justin Seymour, a former postdoctoral fellow at MIT. “Justin walked up to me with a flask of microbes in water, shook it, and asked me what the swirls were,” said Stocker. “Now we know.”

In addition to Seymour, who is now a research fellow at the University of Technology Sydney, other co-authors on the paper are Marcos, Luhar and Durham; Professor James Mitchell of Flinders University in Adelaide, Australia; and Professor Andreas Macke of the Leibniz Institute for Tropospheric Research in Germany.

Next steps: The researchers plan to test this mechanism in the field in a local environment suitable for experimentation, most likely a nearby lake.

Funding: Funding was provided by grants from the National Science Foundation and the Australian Research Council and by a Hayashi Grant from MIT’s International Science and Technology Initiatives Program.

Source:Microbial alignment in flow changes ocean light climate,” by Marcos, Justin Seymour, Mitul Luhar, William Durham, James Mitchell, Andreas Macke and Roman Stocker, in PNAS Early Edition online Feb. 21, 2011.

0 0 votes
Article Rating

Discover more from Watts Up With That?

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.

40 Comments
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
ferd berple
February 24, 2011 11:18 am

Evolution tells us that those lifeforms best able regulate the climate to create advantanges for themselves will out compete those that cannot. Over millions of years those same lifeforms will come to dominate the earth. Could it be that plankton are the true rulers of the earth?

Latitude
February 24, 2011 11:23 am

they say this phenomenon occurs in the ocean when elongated microbes caught in a current align horizontally with the ocean surface
==========================================
Well yeah duh, currents run with the surface……..drag makes them face into the current
….they didn’t take into account the paper saying ocean plankton has decreased 40%
REPLY: Heh. Funny! One paper get published and the whole AGW alarm world thinks plankton is on the way out over a 0.7C temperature rise in the oceans…when in fact plankton live in much greater temperature ranges. The loss of plankton isn’t supporetd by SEAWIFS imagery http://svs.gsfc.nasa.gov/vis/a000000/a003400/a003451/index.html
In fact it is booming. http://wattsupwiththat.com/2008/06/08/surprise-earths-biosphere-is-booming-co2-the-cause/
-Anthony

George E. Smith
February 24, 2011 11:29 am

“”””” Source: “Microbial alignment in flow changes ocean light climate,” by Marcos, Justin Seymour, Mitul Luhar, William Durham, James Mitchell, Andreas Macke and Roman Stocker, in PNAS Early Edition online Feb. 21, 2011. “”””””
So they just couldn’t contain themselves.
How much would the message be changed in their paper title, if they simply omitted the last word ?
Oh I get it; there’s that taxpayer funding they also have to do research on.

R. Gates
February 24, 2011 11:32 am

Very interesting…certainly worthy of further research. I’m also wondering what the link might be between albedo of seawater and the apparent dwindling of plankton as revealed in research published last year:
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=phytoplankton-population

Ray
February 24, 2011 11:33 am

Let me guess… the dangerous microbial concentration is 350 ppm? What a coincidence!!!

JDN
February 24, 2011 11:44 am

It’s still science by press release. Why not wait until it has been tried in a real system?

crucilandia
February 24, 2011 11:44 am

nice in the lab, but in the ocean 90% of bacteria is attached to particles (marine snow, EPS etc). Not even considering that a very small portion of the microbial population in the ocean water is composed of rod-shapped bacteria.

Rhys Jaggar
February 24, 2011 11:51 am

Any bets out there that catastrophic extinctions of phytoplankton herald step-change in climate?

vigilantfish
February 24, 2011 11:51 am

Paul Matisse is not the Matisse – he’s Paul Matisse, a 37 year-old modern artist working in new materials. Very few images of karilloscopes seem to be available online. Here’s one:
http://www.kalliroscope.com/juices/rheoscopic_fluids.htm
This is artwork being offered for sale for scientific purposes. Interesting.

Latitude
February 24, 2011 11:53 am

REPLY: Heh. Funny! One paper get published and the whole AGW alarm world thinks plankton is on the way out over a 0.7C temperature rise in the oceans…
=========================================
Yeah, but there’s a lot of people that take every stupid paper as gospel……..
…and this paper is just as stupid as that other one
With that mind set, I was just surprised they didn’t talk to each other……..
My bad for not explaining it better
This paper came out of MIT, the 40% plankton paper came out of Dalhousie.
Dalhousie and MIT run a joint program………..
Now you know…………………

Algebra
February 24, 2011 11:59 am

This alignment only occurs when you have laminar flow. It applies to any particle of sufficient size that possesses an aspect ratio.

Peter Pond
February 24, 2011 12:32 pm

If a flask of scientists were to be swirled, would all the scientists align to the consensus?

jorgekafkazar
February 24, 2011 12:39 pm

R. Gates says: “Very interesting…certainly worthy of further research. I’m also wondering what the link might be between albedo of seawater and the apparent dwindling of plankton as revealed in research published last year…”
The dwindling has…dwindled.

February 24, 2011 12:46 pm

Anthony:
Recommend that Latitude be given NO latitude due to attitude. Having NEVER posted anything on RC, or any other AWG blog…to begin with, and having never posted something snarky (which of course, comes from not posting on those blogs!) on the “skeptic” side, (trashing the other side universally for what they publish), I have little sympathy for those that do.
A appreciate your graciousness in posting counter papers, and comments. But I think that INDEED this is where civility must rule.

BioBob
February 24, 2011 1:14 pm

DUH !! Next they will “discover” that the “Neuston” (life on, in or just below the water surface film) orientation also has effects on light absorption and refraction and is affected by wind and wave action. And then, in turn, these effects may have significant but unmeasurable input into global climate.
I don’t know how some of these great wits ever got degrees. Global climate is incredibly complex and the more we know, the more we realize we just do NOT KNOW.

Jeff
February 24, 2011 1:18 pm

again the “experts” are suprised at how little they understand about their field of study …
what was the old “consensus” on this ? How dare they challenge it !!!

Latitude
February 24, 2011 1:28 pm

Max Hugoson says:
February 24, 2011 at 12:46 pm
Anthony:
Recommend that Latitude be given NO latitude due to attitude.
=====================================================
:-)…why didn’t you just say you want me to shut up
……..it would have been a lot simpler
sorry, didn’t mean to hit a nerve Max, it was meant as a joke
It was my fault for assuming that other people knew….
I know better than to assume, it was just a slip up on my part………..

Sarge
February 24, 2011 1:43 pm

This phenomenon should come as no shock to anyone with a background in optics or electronics – – as it is exactly how liquid crystal displays work, when coupled with a polarizing filter.

Carl Chapman
February 24, 2011 1:45 pm

Wouldn’t the effect be only at the edges of the flow, unless the flow is turbulent? The article mentions “shear”. Within the body of the current, all the water is moving the same so there’s no shear to align the particles.

Jimbo
February 24, 2011 2:24 pm

Climate scientists should just come clean and say with 95%+ confindence that they do not know whether manmade greenhouse gases are to blame for most of the recent warming. Gigo and unknown unknowns means they really can’t tell us the most probable temperature of the Earth in 89 years time!
“We can’t think of anything else.”
This is getting silly!

February 24, 2011 2:42 pm

UV and particle radiation (particle radiation is a function of solar activity and the strength of Van Allen belt via the Earth’s field strength) could have far larger indirect contribution by controlling plankton volumes and in turn changing the oceans’ clarity and CO2 absorption.
High UV/radiation = reduction in plankton = clear water = deeper penetration, more heat absorbed further down and retained = warming.
Low UV/radiation = more plankton = water less clear = only surface absorption and night time re-radiation = cooling.
Plankton is largest CO2 absorber, but also oceans are largest CO2 emitters, so if CO2 happen to be an important factor than:
High UV/radiation = reduction in plankton = less CO2 absorbed = warming.
Low UV/radiation = more plankton = more CO2 absorbed = cooling.

http://wattsupwiththat.com/2011/02/05/some-interesting-thoughts-on-antarctic-peninsula-warming/

Jimbo
February 24, 2011 2:48 pm
Jimbo
February 24, 2011 3:10 pm

Talking of small life affecting the planet see how resilient the oceans can be in regards to the US Gulf oil spill. Oil and methane were largely taken care of because natural oil seeps have occured for a long time now. Not perfect, but just shows you the Earth is more reslilient “than previously thought.”
http://www.theresilientearth.com/?q=content/amazing-disappearing-gulf-oil-spill
http://www.time.com/time/nation/article/0,8599,2007202,00.html
http://www.sciencemag.org/content/331/6015/312.full

February 24, 2011 4:04 pm

Maybe the oceans are just the LCD display in God’s laptop.
More seriously, I’ve been wondering if the weakening geomagnetic field is causing the observed changes in plankton distribution. Many bacteria are magnetotropic, and seem to use the earth’s field to know which way is up in the ocean.

ferd berple
February 24, 2011 4:54 pm

Well if plankton are falling in population, maybe they are causing the increase in co2. Aren’t planton responsible for most of the co2 -> o2 conversion?
Didn’t the increase in CO2 start about the time they killed off the whales that fed on planton? Sounds like the plankton relied on grazing by whales to stay healthy, as happens with plants and grazing animals on the land.
As the whale population was decimated, the plankton became unhealthy and decreased in number, leading to increased CO2 and AGW. Not caused by SUV’s at all, caused by elimination of the symbiotic relationship between whales and plankton.
Even with an end to hunting, the whale population cannot recover due to the high volume of ocean going vessels and the collisions that result.

Verified by MonsterInsights