“In general, we look for a new law [of Nature] by the following process: First we guess it; then we compute the consequences of the guess to see what would be implied if this law that we guessed is right; then we compare the result of the computation to nature, with experiment or experience, compare it directly with observation, to see if it works. If it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong. In that simple statement is the key to science. It does not make any difference how beautiful your guess is, it does not make any difference how smart you are, who made the guess, or what his name is — if it disagrees with experiment, it is wrong.”

– Richard P Feynman (For contributions to the development of quantum electrodynamics, Feynman received the Nobel Prize in Physics in 1965 jointly with Julian Schwinger and Shin’ichirō Tomonaga. Wiki)

People wonder how I keep my brain working now that retirement is total. I think about things.

First, some background reading. Look up Rayleigh’s oil-drop experiment to determine the size of a molecule, and Benjamin Franklin’s olive oil experiment on Mount Pond, Clapham. Done that? Right, let thinking commence!

I recently read a report of a paper by Professors Ruf and Evans on the detection of microplastic pollution by correlation with pollution-smoothed areas of the ocean. On the principle of the old adage ‘a cat may look at a king’, and Richard Feynman’s statement that the beginning of science is a guess, I propose the following guess in the form of an open letter to Professor Ruf.

~

Dear Professor Ruf,

I have commented briefly on your piece at The Conversation. May I expand?

As an RAF pilot operating from Cyprus in the 1970s, I was struck by how dirty was the surface of the Mediterranean, with oil smooths common. Then later when flying maritime strike aircraft at low level over the North Atlantic, Baltic, etc I observed the same phenomenon, particularly near river outfalls. It was obvious that run-off from industrial and domestic pollution was altering the surface of the ocean. I realise how little light oil is needed to cover a vast expanse of water — A level physics and Rayleigh’s oil drop experiment helps there — but I am continually surprised to find most people do not see the effect: there are smooths everywhere from little seaside bays covered with a film of sun oil to meandering rivers out from every oily seaside restaurant. When I retired I kept an eye out for any reports on this ignored aspect of our damage to the environment, and I was intrigued to see a discussion about the WWII temperature blip. Professor Tom Wigley and his team at UEA went to great lengths to explain this, or at least explain it away. However, this was during the years when ships were being sunk every week, leaking oil for years after they settled on the bottom. It seems obvious to me that the blip was caused by oil pollution.

The SeaWifs monitoring satellite quantifies the amount of light oil washed into the oceans — the website is now very out of date but gives an idea of the scale of the problem, and an effect like the WWII blip must still be occurring.

We dump enough oil and surfactant onto the oceans to smooth the whole surface several times a year. The introduction of breakdown-resistant synthetic surfactants (e.g. Tide first marketed 1946) will have exacerbated this. Professor Ruf, while your ability to trace microplastic pollution is important may I respectfully suggest that your ability to monitor ocean smoothing is even more important: you may well have quantified an ignored contribution to anthropogenic global warming. By combining your technique with satellite observation of cloud cover and Argo sea surface temperatures we will, at last, have some idea of what oil/surfactant pollution is doing to the oceans.

In March 2012 I flew on a commercial jet to Madeira and observed a smooth that was literally thousands of square miles in extent from abeam Porto to a couple of hundred miles short of Madeira. It was not continuous. Some areas were totally covered with the smoothing agent, but in others rivers of smooth and unpolluted surface intertwined. This enabled me to estimate the effect on wave breaking by using the Beaufort scale (sorry, that rather dates me). The breaking waves in the clean areas indicated force 4, but the smoothed areas had hardly any whitecaps at all. There was very little stratocumulus over the area. but on the return flight the smooth was not apparent and there was much more cloud. The thin layer of stratocumulus which is found over 70% of the ocean is a powerful reflector of solar rays. Reduce that layer and ocean warming is inevitable. A kindly marine biologist suggested that lipids from dying phytos – the area had sat under an intense high pressure for weeks and nutrients would have been very depleted – was the source, but your results seem to indicate that oil/surfactant doesn’t oxidise as quickly as assumed, and the stuff may have floated in from thousands of miles away.

Wave suppression has several effects related to surface warming. Fewer waves mean fewer salt aerosols, so less low-level stratocumulus. Phytoplankton populations have to adapt to lower nutrient levels and less dissolved CO2 as stirring and mixing both reduce: does this reduce the amount of DMS produced? (This by-product of phytoplankton metabolism is exhaled as a gas and rapidly forms hygroscopic particles in the air which create cloud droplets and clouds.) Less DMS, less stratocu so warming. A smoothed surface has lower albedo than one ruffled by wind so that, too, will increase warming. Evaporation will be suppressed: warming. There are other biological consequences. My guess — and remember that Feynman teaches us that anyone is allowed to guess — is that by using carbon concentration mechanisms which discriminate less against the heavier carbon isotopes, the phytoplankton ecosystem is leaving a light isotope signal in the atmosphere but exporting less carbon overall to the ocean deeps. More CO2 in the atmosphere but enriched with light CO2, does that signal sound familiar? It’s the so-called smoking gun for fossil fuel burning.

When Deepwater Horizon blew up I mentioned my observation to Prof Judith Curry of the Climate Etc website who tried without success to get aerosol samples over the oiled areas. To my fond eye the satellite images show the smooths eroding the stratocumulus, but whether by albedo warming or aerosol starvation we will never know.

I have taken enough of your time. Let me point out an intriguing observation near you at Michigan University. Lake Michigan is, according to the image at warming at a rate of more than 4 deg C per century which seems unlikely – science demands a better explanation than the usual AGW handwaving. My guess — thank you for your permission, Professor Feynman — is albedo drop and reduced evaporation caused by an oil and surfactant runoff from the roads and sewers of  Chicago. Perhaps your students would benefit from a few days on the water? How they measure pollution that can be as little as one molecule thick will be very interesting.

And if this works out I’d appreciate an invitation to your eventual Stockholm presentation. If it doesn’t, please forget I mentioned it.

Print Friendly, PDF & Email