There are several potential negative feedbacks out there that I still haven't properly researched and written about, such as ocean snow effect, river discharge, salinity, inversion, clouds, ice drift (I know, some of them turn out to actually be positive feedbacks), but lately it occured to me that an increase in algal blooms might actually pull out more CO2 from the atmosphere and thus in a sense be a negative feedback. I didn't think any more of it, as I'm prone to do.
This week, however, there has been a wave of reports in the media about a research result from last year's IceScape mission (here, here, here, here, here, and many more). Contrary to what was thought, phytoplankton is also growing under the ice. With Arctic sea ice thinning ever more, it is expected that algal activity will also increase. The news articles are based on this research paper by Arrigo et al., that is due for publication in Science next week.
Here's a video explaining the whole thing (h/t Climatecrocks):
All those articles basically say the same thing (I think, didn't read them all), except for this one from The Capitol Column that caught my eye: NASA: Increase in CO2 could indirectly lessen effects of global warming. Because of the title I was expecting to read something about CO2, but apparently the take-away message had to be:
While the results of the study are likely alarming for climate scientists, the team noted that the presence of the plants could ultimately lead to a thriving fishing industry and additional benefits.
However, in some of the other articles, such as this one in the Christian Science Monitor, there was a tiny speck of info regarding CO2:
The scientists said the discovery also may have major implications for the global carbon cycle and the ocean’s energy balance, and they may need to revise their understanding of the ecology of the Arctic and the region’s role in the Earth system.
This phenomenon has many implications, as most developments in the Arctic do, for ecosystems, marine life and fisheries. But what will the effects of the increase in phytoplankton under the ice be for the ice itself, for the Arctic as a whole, for CO2 uptake, for ocean acidity, for oxygen availability (there will be more nutrient-rich river discharge because of melting permafrost)?
I honestly don't have a clue, but would love to read anything that readers know about this subject. It might come in handy if I ever do come around to writing that piece on negative feedbacks.