‘Foamenting’ climate change

From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, more ideas on geoengineering:

File:Sea foam on the shore.jpg

sea foam by the sea shore image from Wikimedia

PACIFIC GROVE, CALIFORNIA—In an effort to curb global warming, scientists have proposed everything from launching sunlight-blocking dust into the stratosphere to boosting the number of carbon-sucking algae in the oceans. Now, a Harvard University physicist has come up with a new way to cool parts of the planet: pump vast swarms of tiny bubbles into the sea to increase its reflectivity and lower water temperatures. “Since water covers most of the earth, don’t dim the sun,” says the scientist, Russell Seitz, speaking from an international meeting on geoengineering research here. “Brighten the water.”

Natural bubbles already brighten turbulent seas and provide a luster known as “undershine” below the ocean’s surface. But these bubbles only lightly brighten the planet, contributing less than one-tenth of 1% of Earth’s reflectivity, or albedo. What Seitz imagines is pumping even smaller bubbles, about one-five-hundredth of a millimeter in diameter, into the sea. Such “microbubbles” are essentially “mirrors made of air,” says Seitz, and they might be created off boats by using devices that mix water supercharged with compressed air into swirling jets of water. “I’m emulating a natural ocean phenomenon and amplifying it just by changing the physics—the ingredients remain the same.”

Computer simulations show that tiny bubbles could have a profound cooling effect. Using a model that simulates how light, water, and air interact, Seitz found that microbubbles could double the reflectivity of water at a concentration of only one part per million by volume. When Seitz plugged that data into a climate model, he found that the microbubble strategy could cool the planet by up to 3°C. He has submitted a paper on the concept he calls “Bright Water” to the journal Climatic Change.

In addition to helping curb global warming, the microbubble strategy could also help conserve water by reducing evaporation in rivers and lakes, says Seitz. That’s a problem that leads to the loss of billions of tons of freshwater each year in California alone.

Seitz says adding bubbles to a 1-square-kilometer patch of ocean is feasible, but scaling it up may be technically difficult. Energy is not the limiting factor, he says, estimating that the energy output of 1000 windmills might be sufficient to add bubbles to an entire ocean. The larger challenge to large-scale deployment, he says, would be ensuring that the bubbles last as long as possible. In nature, a bubble’s lifetime depends on the level of dissolved organic matter and nanoparticles, without which small bubbles rapidly shrink and disappear. If the water is too clean, the bubbles might not last long enough to be effectively spread over large areas, Seitz says.

One way to test the viability of the idea might be to study the impact of bubbles created in the wakes of ships, says oceanographer Peter Brewer of the Monterey Bay Aquarium Research Institute in Moss Landing, California. “It’s something nobody’s talked about,” he says of Seitz’s technique.

130 thoughts on “‘Foamenting’ climate change

  1. Don Ho solved this problem many years ago.

    Tiny bubbles (tiny bubbles)
    In the wine (in the wine)
    Make me happy (make me happy)
    Make me feel fine (make me feel fine)

  2. “It’s something nobody’s talked about,” he says of Seitz’s technique.

    Wonder why???

  3. “…Energy is not the limiting factor, he says, estimating that the energy output of 1000 windmills might be sufficient to add bubbles to an entire ocean…”

    Which ocean would that be?

  4. Oh great. These climatologists now want to stuff around with geoengineering to fix a non-existent problem.

    I suppose the author needs grants for more research? My answer is NO, go get a proper job.

  5. I’m all for this.

    There’s entirely too much unregulated photosynthesis going on in the oceans, and the end result is bizarre and scary sea life that keeps me awake at night.

    Death to the algae! Death to the plankton! Death to the krill! Death to the weird looking stuff that eats them, and death to the tasty whales that we’re not allowed to eat anyway!

  6. The old commercial said, “It’s not nice to fool mother nature!” The hubris of humans is as unmeasurable as future climate and more dangerous! Is it not more terrifying to think of cooling the planet by 3 degrees C, especially at the hands of man, than to think of a degree of warming over the next century? The planet has prospered under warming in the past, but did it thrive biologically or culturally during the Little Ice Age? Geo-engineering is the most frightening endeavor I have seen in my lifetime! Are humans really THAT stupid?!

  7. Hey I have a better idea – we can nuke the Sahara desert and turn it into glass. Sand already has a pretty high albedo, but at least this gives the government the appearance of strong action and that’s really the most important thing.

  8. When Seitz plugged that data into a climate model, he found that the microbubble strategy could cool the planet by up to 3°C>>

    Ah yes, a computer model said so. Of course the computer models have been wrong about everything else. Which in turn means that he doesn’t have a freakin clue what would actually happen if we did this.

    But go ahead, play with matches. Would you like some gasoline to go with that? Can you say “unintended consequences”?

  9. Here’s a nice little research project. Take the calculations from Dr Seitz’s proposal and use them to calculate how much the total reflectivity of the oceans would need to be changed.

    Then calculate how much reduction of the bright phytoplankton Emiliania huxleyi population would have the same effect. Compare the numbers.

    Then work out how we have reduced the amount of Emiliania huxleyi in the oceans by pollution, silica run-off and reduction in nutrients via the Kriegesmarine effect.

    Reduced bubbles, all part of my overarching mega theory of CC, but I’d not realised how much bubbles effect albedo. Add that to smoothed waters’ lower albedo, plankton changes, reduced CCN production both mechanical and biological….

    What was it? It must be CO2 because we can’t think of anythng else it can be.

    JF

  10. So, how many ocean species do you suppose this nut case idea will exterminate? Do you suppose this would finish off the coral they are so worried about. Bubbles made of what, and how will it affect the oceans PH?

    Anybody else care to speculate about the potential downside to this hair brained scheme.

  11. How on earth would you fill an entire ocean with bubbles? Mind you, it could be dubbed the world’s largest Jacuzzi!

    Bus seriously, the man needs to get a hobby, or something.

  12. baahumbug — I suppose the author needs grants for more research? My answer is NO, go get a proper job.

    Seitz has one and he’s brilliant. He’s also hilarious; check out his web site. I think it’s admanant dot typepad dot com (or was at one time.)

  13. This may fall into the category of the cure is worse than the disease. I imagine a uniform foam layer would severely disrupt the ability of freshwater aquatic insects to hatch, it would impact the quality and quantity of light penetrating the water column negatively affecting primary production, it would certainly have a negative impact on the foraging success of fish eating birds by interfering with their ability to spot prey and may impact the gas flux between the water and atmosphere. On the ocean it may also impact wind wave propagation. This “idea” may to be worse than bio-fuels.

  14. Of course because increasing the dissolved oxygen content in the sea will have no ecological impact whatsoever.

  15. *sigh* Beware the unintended consequences…

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/03/24/iron-dumping-experiment-is-a-bust-it-feeds-crustaceans-doesnt-trap-carbon/

    This geoengineering junk amazes me! DOE Sec. Chu wants to put sulfur dioxide into the atmosphere, paint all streets/rooftops white, and now these clowns want to completely shut down the photosynthesis in the oceans with foam??

    Excuse me, I forgot to turn my lights off! Happy Belated Earth Hour!

  16. To paraphrase Dr. Trenberth:
    “The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!”

    No, wait, that’s not a paraphrase , it’s a direct quote :|

  17. Its called geoengineering for a good reason! Fanciful thinking by a phizzicist professor is quite different than the kind of thinking an engineer must do. The problems are enormous. The energy required enormous, beyond enormous if the bubbles only last a few hours and the only reliable, predictable energy sources would be disqualified by these magic kingdom characters. Windmills! This quixotic technology has already failed miserably to deliver reliable power in Europe and the US and is ridiculously expensive to build and maintain.

    There is much more for the engineer to consider here (distribution – how to deploy this flotilla of windmills, etc. but let’s move on to another galaxy of problems. Surely even an academic phizzicist like the good Dr would start by asking the marine biology department at his own university if this might kill off the earth’s precious plankton or other marine life. An engineer certainly would. Goofy geoengineering ideas from under-employed phizzicists (sounds like the noise you get when you decouple an air-hose doesn’t it?) are usually of the how-hard-could-it-be type. And he has peers that will review this dross?

  18. This is nothing more than a repackaging attempt to get around the key question:
    Should we be doing this?
    The answer is no.
    Forfeiting the opportunity to adapt is the price to be paid.
    Make a mistake and for the next 30 – 40 years the die is cast.
    Even if the direction guess is correct (and it appears highly probable that it is not) and you cool a warming planet, the next cooling cycle will plunge from an artificially lowered starting point.
    Either way it is sliced, gambling with the climate is sheer insanity and doomed to failure.
    In both cases, cooling a warming planet and cooling a cooling planet, there is no
    undo button.
    Let me repeat that:
    There is NO UNDO button.
    No way to warm an artificially cooled planet.
    2/3 of the planet is ocean, and you have no way to artificially warm it.

  19. I wonder if all this nonsense happens because we have too many scientists looking for anything to stifle the boredom in academia……….

  20. This is probably OT.
    http://www.physorg.com/news188827980.html
    NASA Study Finds Atlantic ‘Conveyor Belt’ Not Slowing

    “Looking further back with satellite altimeter data alone before the float data were available, Willis found evidence that the circulation had sped up about 20 percent from 1993 to 2009. This is the longest direct record of variability in the Atlantic overturning to date and the only one at high latitudes.

    The latest climate models predict the overturning circulation will slow down as greenhouse gases warm the planet and melting ice adds freshwater to the ocean.”

    Maybe we should hold off on the large scale geo-engineering for now.

  21. Timhulsey,

    Yes Tim, I believe we are that stupid – as a species. We understand the pendulum of thought swings back and forth – and we know the highest speed is through the center of the swing so reasonable thought is just a fleeting second in this history long oscillation.

    Mike

  22. Steve Goddard (20:44:20) :

    Don Ho solved this problem many years ago.

    Tiny bubbles (tiny bubbles)
    In the wine (in the wine)
    Make me happy (make me happy)
    Make me feel fine (make me feel fine)

    excellent! LOL

  23. I can’t imagine anyone funding such research since it could only be implemented on a less than global scale, and we all know the AGW is a fraud to justify a global carbon tax, unless the neo-malthusians want to plunge us into another ice age to reduce population by 90%.

    Of course, geoengineering has military applications. It has long been recognized that controlling the weather of your opponent, or on the battle field could be useful. Google “owning the weather 2025”. But at least thats a useful application that makes a degree of sense.

    In any event, if any scientist really think they understand weather and climate well enough to engineer climate on a global scale, they need to get help. That 3 deg C change has a bit of uncertainty, and a 3 deg C change in global temperatures could very well trigger another ice age and lead to a 10 deg C or more drop, not to mention what it might do to ocean life that relies on photosynthesis, and that life that relies on them being present in large numbers for food.

  24. In an effort to curb global warming, scientists have proposed everything…

    Did they check first to see if global warming is even happening?

    The Climate Response Fund—fund—does that have something to do with money?

    “Brighten the water.” Well, at least the water is getting brighter. Don’t think I can say the same for the guys involved.

  25. The only “bubbles” that exist in this story are the bubbles inside the brains of Seitz and others who propose such fanciful stuff without proper consideration of the possible consequences. They are bubbleheads.

  26. Jeff Id (21:37:28) :

    Doesn’t the water look green for a reason. Are we sure we want to block light with a trillion ton’s of palmolive?

    One of those unintended consequences Michael Crichton warned of. You create the bubbles that reflect the light back up and kill the life in the water that depends on the light going in to the water.

  27. Seitz says adding bubbles to a 1-square-kilometer patch of ocean is feasible, but scaling it up may be technically difficult.

    Ya think? Try scaling that up 360,000,000 times. As in total surface area of the worlds oceans is about 360 million km2. More like technically impossible ya twit

    peace,
    Tim.

  28. Computer simulations show that tiny bubbles could have a profound cooling effect.

    Ahhhh, I see now, computer simulations—follow that money!

  29. This is a completely feasible idea. The oceans have a total area of about 360 million km². Germany, which is bigger than about 3/4 of the countries on the planet, has an area of about 360 thousand km². Thus we simply need to divide the oceans up into 1000 regions the size of Germany, and put a bubble-machine in the middle of each one. Nothing more complicated than one machine every 600 km (360 mi) or so. Maintenance and reliability wouldn’t be a problem. We’d just run them on self-adjusting solar panels and windmills made of unobtanium. Piece of cake!

    It used to be that we doodled [self-snip] like this on the back of an envelope, and then threw it away. Nowadays it gets published. Interesting times….

    /dr.bill

  30. This is what happens when idiots are allowed to think out loud. And a real reason why the Japanese and Koreans have surpassed America and Europe in REAL science and the Chinese think we are nobodies. This is not science. This is daydreaming. Our PhDs are “obamanations”.

  31. I’m just waiting for someone, somewhere to come out with the line “The only was of saving the planet is to destroy it”
    Yet another engineering nightmare proposal that solves a non problem by introducing about 10 more.

  32. There’s just no limit to how far “scientists” will go to keep their grant funding.

    For them to think that any geoengineering is even necessary means that they do not understand basic science.

    If they understood basic science they could not support AGW.

    “It is hard to expect a man to see the truth when his livelihood and family income depends on him not seeing it.” – author unknown

  33. I am sure someone will find that an oil film would accomplish much the same goal, be much easier to cover large areas with little effort, and can be done for almost no cost (just loosen the environmental contols for offshore dirillling rigs).

    Seriously, how are you going to string millions of miles of pipes on the ocean bottom, compress air to a gazillion psi to bubble from 18,000 feet deep. Get real! What frosts me isthis guy is probably getting a quarter of a million dollar grant from the government (from us) to come up with this cockomamie idea. Better to paint all the roads and parking lots white.

    Now give me a quarter of a mil for that one…or the oil one.

  34. “Computer simulations show that tiny bubbles could have a profound cooling effect. ”

    Profound…. is that similar to ‘robust’?

    How about this – pump a whole bunch of Co2 into the oceans. That will solve the atmospheric Co2 problem and make the sea like Coke-a-Cola and improve buoyancy so those Cola ads will be even more fantastic and then we can all float up to heaven in a bubble and there will be no more arguments because Coke is the real thing. If I had a PhD (and enough funding) I could make this robust hypothesis fly, I’m sure I could!

  35. FergalR (21:44:51) : “The fact that we can not account for what is happening in the climate system makes any consideration of geoengineering quite hopeless as we will never be able to tell if it is successful or not! It is a travesty!” –Dr. Trenberth

    I’m beginning to like this guy.

  36. Just like progressives. Implement solutions to non-existent problems in dynamic systems that cause the very affect that is considered the problem.Then introduce even more solutions that exasperate the problem even father. Repeat until world dominion.

  37. Actually, this skeptic thinks there may be a chance that we may not be able to offset the effects of AGW/ACC. So, tiny bubbles, mirrors in the sand, shaving and polishing our heads, may not be enough to reverse the damage. Even if we were to completely shut off all CO2 emissions, we may be too late.

    http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=risks-of-global-warming-rising

    Ok. Some of you may think I’m an alarmist. But hold on a minute. I am a skeptic, just like you. I just happen to see things from a different viewpoint. Does that mean I can’t be a skeptic? And, isn’t this a site for skeptics? So, cool your jets a bit. Ok? May as well welcome another fellow skeptic aboard, right?

    To help put this all into perspective, I created a timeline to help me, and others, to see how this all evolved over time. This isn’t new. It wasn’t invented by Mann, or Gore, or the IPCC. It actually goes way back in time.

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/climate-science-timeline/

    So, this skeptic is of the opinion that there’s significant evidence that AGW/ACC is real. But, it may be too late to offset the negative effects.

    So, am I drinking the koolaide, as it’s often claimed? No. I’m more like what’s described here:

    http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

    And here:

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/baloney-detection-kit/

    And here:

  38. Classic, Tim!

    Luke Skywarmer (21:16:40) :

    Tiny bubbles in the wine….. Don Ho, born Donald Tai Loy Ho

    ya that’s the best I could find lol

    Tim

  39. Sheer brilliance.

    And speaking of unintended consequences, I wonder how the lawsuits will be handled when winter snowstorms rage to levels not experienced since the Little Ice Age.

    Or the impact on hurricane directions.

    Perhaps Catlin would like to do the underwriting. If they think climate change is bad, just wait’ll they get the bill for claims due to geoengineering.

  40. jorgekafkazar (22:34:14) :

    And if we give them the licence to proceed, they will keep trying even though nothing happens at first. By the time they manage to change the climate and are sure it has changed, they will discover the law of unintended consequences has a huge climactic lag to it. And it will keep right on cooling.
    “George, the brakes are about to fail. Smell ’em?”
    ‘Naw, that’s just some new car smell. We can stop on a dime on this long grade.
    Besides, we got a 5 year unlimited warranty from that nice salesman, and those guard rails will save us’

  41. So, to me this ‘tiny bubbles in some foam on the ocean’ Havard idea implies the follow is just as viable and much less dangerous:

    Pass a law where all daytime beer drinkers are required to drink their beer from 1 m wide by 1 m long by 1 cm deep trays using either a doglke lapping technique or using a straws. The temporary (until you drink all the beer) tiny beer foam bubbles on the large surface area will have same effect as screwing around with foam making machines in the oceans. DON’T screw around with the oceans.

    John

  42. Larry (22:06:17) “The only “bubbles” that exist in this story are the bubbles inside the brains of Seitz and others who propose such fanciful stuff without proper consideration of the possible consequences. They are bubbleheads.”

    Amen.

  43. April the first, all year round it seems.

    There is even another reason why you don’t want bubbles in the water, especially on such a large scale. It al has to do with a Eureka moment by some ancient Greek a long time ago.

    Still in my opinion it would be much easier, most likely also a lot cheaper to introduce some chemicals to the ocean surface that have the same effect. Far more effective, within a few months ocean temperatures will drop sharpely, followed by atmospheric temperatures and before you know it you are back into a full scale ice-age, but this time it would be more like “Snowball Earth”.

  44. Rumor has it that within the American Association for the Advancement of Science this is known as the Sea Habitat Optical Light Enhancement System. Commonly referred to as AAASSHOLES.

  45. Wasn’t there a “Bubble Theory” for the Bermuda Triangle, where gas released from fissures on the ocean floor created bubble fields on the surface, which ships suddenly sank into? As long as the bubbles in this story are on the surface, I guess we won’t lose shipping. Still, I don’t like the idea of all this.

  46. Having worked as a commercial fisherman and done sailboat deliveries, I know that the ocean is … well … huge beyond belief. So, let’s do some back of the envelope calculations …

    Boat going 10 m/sec = 20 knots.

    Spreads bubbles in a swath 10 metres wide.

    We’ll say we have one hundred bubble boats.

    That’s 10,000 square metres bubbleized per second.

    Area of the world’s oceans is 360,000,000,000,000 square metres.

    Time to bubbleize say half of the oceans is 17,892,270,924 seconds, or

    298,204,515 minutes, or

    4,970,075 hours, or

    207,086 days, or only

    5,874 years.

    So a fleet of only a hundred thousand boats could get the job done in five point nine years. Of course, the bubbles will all disperse in say a month (probably more like a week or even a day, but I’m a generous man), so we’ll need 140 times that many boats to maintain the bubbles.

    So all we need is 14 million boats. And a thousand windmills. Oh, and the fuel for the boats. Let’s see, a boat going 20 knots might burn five gallons of fuel per hour, 14 million boats, that’s 70 million gallons of fuel an hour at a cost of three bucks a gallon, that’s a constant running cost of $210,000,000 per hour forever, or

    $5 billion dollars per day, or

    $1.8 trillion dollars per year in perpetuity.

    Ooops, forgot the crew’s wages, say four crewpersons per boat, that’s a work force of 52 million men and women. Say they’re each getting $40k per year because of the long hours and the time away from home. That’s another $2 trillion dollars per year. And not counting the cost of the boats. And not counting the maintenance on the boats and the machinery.

    Now we just need the grant money …

  47. As dumb as this might sound on the surface. It’s several orders of magnitude less dumb than spending trillions and trillions of dollars (a year!) on crackpot socialist carbon schemes.

  48. Willis,

    We (you) are up early today. Actually, I am not. It is 3:40 pm here.

    Where are you?

    John

  49. Lolz….”estimating that the energy output of 1000 windmills might be sufficient to add bubbles to an entire ocean. ”
    I believe he’s referring to 1000 magic fairy windmills which will of course be sufficient.

    But seriously if they try this I think they can just scale up the process used by Coke etc al. to make fizzy drinks. Seems reasonable.

  50. & you can be sure he calculated the number of windmills on their rated power ! So he’s got an 80% shortfall straight away

    it’s a good job these Eco-nuts aren’t engineers

  51. Willis, won’t this increase sea levels? What about the volume of displacement? How big the bubbas?

  52. Here is Dr. Seitz demonstrating the efficacy of his theory by using his own hot tub and a bottle of Walmart dishwashing liquid that was on sale for $1.27:

  53. (ROTFL) We could save the 70 mill gal of gas by using windmills to power the boats, and instead of using air we could use CO2 for the bubbas (kill 2 birds).

  54. “pump vast swarms of tiny bubbles into the sea to increase its reflectivity and lower water temperatures.”

    Here on earth we call that wind. If there are many bubbles and lots of cooling we call that a storm.

  55. This would probably work. Which is very dangerous. If you make the earth colder, the risk is ending the current interglacial period.
    The earth’s climate currently (last few million years) switches between ice (100,000 years) and interglacial (10 to 20,000 years) .
    The current interglacial has lasted 12,000 years.
    I don’t know what temperature drop would be needed to start the Ice age, but once started the ice albedo feedback means it can’t be stopped.
    Ice ages only end when the earth’s orbital parameters force the ice to retreat, which will be a long wait. As per above about 100,000 years.

  56. Bloody Hell what about the mermaids, what about the mermaid’s kids, they like green water and Kelp and Plankton and all kinds of green stuff.

    They like swimming around in the nuddy, and now this Boffin wants Mermaids and their pups to wear cardigans and wetsuits.

    This bloke keeps it up, I will sool PETA on the basket. Now he wants to freeze fish before we catch them.

    Mad I tell ya mad. Freaken mad.

    In Queensland reflective roofs make sense, we only wear a jumper about 6 weeks a year.

    What I never understood is why we dont dry clothes in the roof space. Its hot up there I know.

    Mad Random Jack.

  57. Why don’t we just paint the oceans white? We would just have to make sure we start in the corner opposite the door. I’m sure Dr. Chu would approve.

  58. The bubbles at work here are the bubble like voids that pervade brain tissue of someone suffering from senile dementia.

  59. Let’s start small with this idea. Test it in a small reservoir for a few years and see if there are any untoward effects, if it really does slow down evaporation, and how costly it is.

  60. Just another example of the conceit and arrogance of certain humans on this planet.

    Destroy us all they will if continue to meddle they must.

    I wonder what happens when i press this big red butto………..

  61. I think the only way to solve this problem is to do the following:
    Every Federal or Bank Holiday we need to have a little, old fashioned ‘Sacrifice to the Climate Gods’ to placate their anger at us for all our transgressions, the only way to do this is to offer up the World’s Top Climatologist as an offering, either by tossing them into a nice Hawaiian Volcano or by cutting their heart out at a little pyramid in Mexico City. True, these individuals will become a matter of short supply in a few years, so it’s only reasonable to then turn to individuals in category two – of which there is an infinite supply – Current and Former Politicians Who Want To Safe The World.
    You’ll have to admit, I’m sure, that this trick seemed to work fairly well during the past 12,000 years.

  62. slrtx (22:47:44) : So, this skeptic is of the opinion that there’s significant evidence that AGW/ACC is real. But, it may be too late to offset the negative effects.
    You only believe there is “significant evidence”, i.e. you take it on faith. You haven’t actually examined the evidence to see whether there might be flaws, which simply makes you a Believer. How’s that kool-aid taste?
    The reason geoengineering is a bad idea is two-fold: first and foremost, it is completely unnecessary, and therefor a waste of energy and resources, and secondly, we have no idea what the actual environmental consequences would be.

  63. Nature may have already beaten us to it. As Willlis will testify, above a certain windspeed the sea produces more surface bubbles automatically, in the form of foam.

    This opens up the possibility of discovering a new feedback mechanism, and possibly even a driver, for global warming!

    Firstly, from the various weather records we need a global average yearly windspeed for the past 100 years or so.

    Then we will need a function showing foam increase against windspeed.

    We could then show the variation of albedo with windspeed on a historical basis, and produce an equivalent W/m2 value.

    (If there is a correlation with the temperature record, I reckon it should be called the ‘WUWT Effect’ )

  64. “slrtx (22:47:44) :

    Actually, this skeptic thinks there may be a chance that we may not be […]”

    I like your timeline, a nice collection of all the researchers involved in the CO2 climate theory. I see no mention of any significant skeptic but that was surely not your goal. So, it’s a good illustration of the orthodox movement.

  65. They could use the computer models to assess how the Albedo of the Earth has changed in the last 150 years instead. So far, all they have is a slight increase from all the agricultural land we have developed, nothing from cloud cover changes and then a 0.6C decline from the Aerosols we have added.

    Hansen has the Albedo of the last ice age only producing a 3.0C decline in temperatures so it would take a large amount of bubbles to produce the same decline that all that highly reflective ice, sea ice, desert, dust and snow did in the last ice age.

    In other words, the climate models can produce whatever temperature impact you want them to show. If you want white roofs to fix your problem, tiny bubbles to, if you need a negative forcing to fix your temperature over-estimate or if you want to downplay the Albedo changes in the ice ages, the models can do that for you.

  66. Willis, I have to call you on one thing. They will all be sailboats. Thus you will have to increase the total number of boats you need because the wind is variable. Just think though, we could man them all with AGW boosters and get them out to sea. Of course, they have been out to sea for a long time already even when they stand on dry land.

  67. We’ve already started geoengineering – in the US we have paved roughly the same surface area as the state of Wisconsin – and that’s only accounting for roads and parking lots! Until these same climate scientists can properly account for what we’ve already done – instead of “correcting” it out of their temperature records and ignoring it in the models… they should not be allowed to use them in this manner.

    The *one* geo-engineering experiment I have seen that didn’t seem like a total waste of time was I ran across on Discovery Planet Green. They made an “Ocean Pump”, basically a really long tube with a one-way valve hanging underneath a float. The point was it would be powered by the waves and pull up oxygen content and lower temperatures. Other than their design not lasting the week or two they left it out there (one was completely destroyed, the other half-way), it actualy seemed to work – the area they were in had formerly been barren and when they came back there was all sorts of life around.

  68. Someone needs to burst his bubble.

    Seitz isn’t interested in cooling the planet — he’s only curious to see if he actually *can* aerate umpty-million square klicks of water.

    Regardless of cost.

  69. The birth and evolution of Religion: usually involving devotional and ritual observances, and often containing a moral code governing the conduct of human affairs.

    Cultural Anthropology – (when Poly-Sci became a required 3 unit elective) foundation building to successful cultural sustainability requiring 5 stones of consistent behavior, one – religion that meets the adversities in life.

    Chicken House Syndrome – (1940’s-50’s) chicks per 9 sq ft. Density excess developed the need to ‘blinder’ (eye spectacle shades) in retarding the successes of the bully group.

  70. Sorry, strayed a little OT back there… I propose they make the bubblers into fanciful shapes and designs, like volcanoes and treasure chests – just like they have at the pet shops for aquariums

    I mean, if we’re going to do ridiculous by god *DO RIDICULOUS*

  71. …the microbubble strategy could also help conserve water by reducing evaporation…

    And where does the rain come from? Global drought, anyone?

  72. These people are amazing! Here is what they are thinking: They say humans are messing with the environment and to fix the problem, we need to mess with the environment. Do these people ever stop and think? Or is their blind love of money clouding their cognitive thinking ability?

  73. Capn Jack,
    I wouldn’t do that (hang clothes to dry in your attic) if I were you!

    The last thing your house needs in the hot weather is more moisture inside of it. You’d risk creating a perfect mold-growing environment inside your house.

    Now if you could stick an enclosure, seperate from your attic and made of materials that mold doesn’t like (galvanised steel for example), you could use the vented, heated air from your attic to dry clothes. If you built it, I’m sure the green folks would come calling on it. I think it’s a neat idea myself!

    Just don’t do it in the house!

  74. slrtx (22:47:44) :
    “2006: [M] Former Vice President Al Gore’s documentary “An Inconvenient Truth” is released. Ok. I guess the so-called “skeptic” might say Al Gore invented global warming at this point. But, to deny AGW/ACC, you still need to explain how the history of climate science up to this point got it wrong.”

    Well. The term ‘so-called “skeptic”’ irks me a little and lets your intention shine through. Maybe you should inform your readers about the fact that Al Gore learned about AGW through Revelle and that Revelle later in his life changed his opinion about possible catastrophic consequences of CO2 rise. Unfortunately i have no link available… wait… here’s a piece by John Coleman:

  75. CRS, Dr.P.H. (21:44:40) :

    *sigh* Beware the unintended consequences…

    http://blogs.discovermagazine.com/80beats/2009/03/24/iron-dumping-experiment-is-a-bust-it-feeds-crustaceans-doesnt-trap-carbon/
    ***********************************************************************

    Actually, it seems to me that the idea worked out after all. By introducing new food into the bottom of the bio food chain, they have increased the total bio mass. It really doesn’t matter if it is the dead algae falling to the ocean floor or whale poo. Although, it seems that the dead algae would be more efficient as a carbon sequestration process. Of course, the biological decomposition of the algae/whale poo creates natural gas. The gas, in turn can be harvested and used to make bio ethanol.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Methane_clathrate

    So, it’s a total win-win situation. For the investment of a little iron sulfate, we get more bio fuel. In the process, we Save the Whales by providing more food.

    Cool.

    I will happily research this concept if the administration will give me only a $40 million grant from the stimulus package!

    Send me an email and I will tell you where to send the money. It’s a bank account in Nigeria.

    Regards,

    Steamboat Jack

  76. This makes me wonder what a lil’ ol’ cloud could do to reduce temperatures. Since clouds exist – and we have already demonstrated techniques to enhance cloud formation – maybe one should study them rather than waltzing off into the land beyond fanciful.

  77. I think you can say this is stupid, but less stupid than other proposals along similar lines.

    Let us suppose it can be done and Willis’ various objections can be dealt with. A casual glance at ice-core temperature proxies provides plenty of evidence that it is a good bet we’re within 1000 years, and possibly within 100 years, of another ice age. Not another Little Ice Age, but a big freeze. This prospect does not scare me; there is also evidence that the world, and humans have adapted well to big freezes and can do so again in the future. But let us suppose that, right at the inflection point, where the temperature ball starts running hard downhill, some brilliant geoengineering project manages to strip the earth of its capacity, over a period of time, of absorbing and storing up solar energy.

    Think being in a blizzard without thermal underwear.

    A few elements of this story are a bit frightening. Take, for example, the scientists’ enthusiasm about the use of bubbles for water conservation. Hmmm. If these things do significantly reduce evaporation (I’m not convinced, but let’s just say), and we manage to cover the entire oceanic face of the earth with them. We’re talking worldwide drought. And other unintended consequences. For example, less evaporation might mean less high-level cloud cover, which means reduced overall earth albedo, which could mean overall HEATING effect.

    The best laid plans…

  78. “DirkH (07:52:37) :
    […]
    Well. The term ’so-called “skeptic”’ irks me a little and lets your intention shine through.”

    To elaborate: Of course one could say it like you said, slrtx, but the wall of text you linked to that tries to redefine the word “skeptic” and the term ’so-called “skeptic”’ that you use all sound like you want to own the word and redefine its meaning…. and that actually detracts from any scientific merits the AGW-CO2 theory might have and reeks too much of social engineering for me to still take seriously. I mean, you can have the word skeptic and i’ll take righteous ok?

  79. These “little bubbles” would kill life on earth!
    Tell these guys stop thinking and instead try to think how to save your OWN COUNTRY.
    Thanks God you won´t have the money to produce all the bubbles needed unless China lends you the money, and for that to happend they would have to be convinced first, which I sincerely doubt.

  80. I’m thinking the easiest way to make a lot of bubbles fast would involve retrofitting some of those old DC-10 fire fighting tankers to deploy vast quantities of Dawn (or Ivory, Palmolive, etc) dishwashing soap instead of water. Fill those planes up to capacity and park them on some Caribbean island — say, Puerto Rico — where they’d quietly wait for a large tropical cyclone to come chugging along. That’s when our hypothetical fleet of DC-10’s would fly directly over the cyclone and airdrop their cargo of highly concentrated dishwashing liquid directly over the area of maximum wind and water turbulence. Now I realize this approach will essentially have zero impact on the climate system but at least it would be more effective at foam creation than an armada of windmill powered tugboats.

  81. On the positive side, bubbling air into the ocean dead-zones will reoxygenate them.

    In terms of cooling the planet, please.

    Mike Ramsey

  82. Wade (07:12:41) :

    These people are amazing! Here is what they are thinking: They say humans are messing with the environment and to fix the problem, we need to mess with the environment. Do these people ever stop and think? Or is their blind love of money clouding their cognitive thinking ability?

    Was that a rhetorical question?

    Mike Ramsey

  83. timhulsey says:
    March 27, 2010 at 9:11 pm
    The old commercial said, “It’s not nice to fool mother nature!” The hubris of humans is as unmeasurable as future climate and more dangerous! Is it not more terrifying to think of cooling the planet by 3 degrees C, especially at the hands of man, than to think of a degree of warming over the next century? The planet has prospered under warming in the past, but did it thrive biologically or culturally during the Little Ice Age? Geo-engineering is the most frightening endeavor I have seen in my lifetime! Are humans really THAT stupid?! ”

    I couldn’t agree more!!!!! What is wrong with humans? We and most of life On earth prospers in warmth, not in cold. Why are we talking about cooling the earth now? How about just keep it at the current temperature? But I for one would mind a little more warmth. If it was warmer I would burn less oil trying to stay warm.

  84. DirkH (08:10:35) (and your previous post):

    You posted the entirety of my text. In it you see that I said, “I guess the so-called ‘skeptic’ might say Al Gore invented global warming at this point.”

    Did you miss it? What I’m saying is that anyone who claims that Al Gore invented global warming is certainly not a skeptic. At least, not a rational skeptic.

    Of course Al learned things from others. So what? That only proves that he actually talked to real scientists about the issue. It’s called fact-checking and research. More people should try that, before posting on blogs.

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/people-believe-anything-they-read/

    Open-mindedness means we learn from others. A closed-minded person thinks they have it all figured out. Those who are irrational, fail to learn from others, and filter all facts out except for those that support their position may ACT like a skeptic, but I for one wouldn’t call them a skeptic. Putting it mildly, I’d call them a “so-called skeptic.”

    If you or anyone has any input for anything I may have missed on my timeline, or if you feel I am in error, please point it out. The page does have the ability to post comments.

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/climate-science-timeline/

    But just quibbling over my use of the term “so-called skeptic” doesn’t forward anyone’s understanding of the science of climate change. It’s like me coming here to read about the “alarmists”.

    Thank you for your feedback.

    Here’s a re-post of my links discussing what it means to be a skeptic. This is position I am coming from.

    http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

    And here:

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/baloney-detection-kit/

    And here:

  85. Every time humans attempted to help the natural world ‘fix’ a supposed problem, it turns out into a disaster. (e.g. rabbits in Australia, starlings in NA) That a scientist is proposing an intervention into a natural process tells me two things. One that as a species we still haven’t learned from all the past helping-hand mistakes and, two, science has taken on an arrogance that is truly worrying.

  86. “…In addition to helping curb global warming, the microbubble strategy could also help conserve water by reducing evaporation in rivers and lakes, says Seitz. That’s a problem that leads to the loss of billions of tons of freshwater each year in California alone.”

    Uhhh…no. He seems to have overlooked what happens when his little ‘microbubbles’ reach the surface….they *POP* and anyone who has observed what happens when a bubble pops, it throws a mist into the air.

    Now, when talking about evaporation in conjunction with a mist, if the air is near saturation, no problem – the mist usually sinks back to the surface (with light/no winds, of course). *HOWEVER* (especially in reference to California), when the air is fairly dry, that mist evaporates very quickly and will actually accellerate (sp?) the water loss from the river/lake than what would be lost from a smooth surface alone.

    Think about it…

    Jeff

  87. Willis,
    With all these boats……………………
    And all that grant money…………….
    How about a job for me?

  88. I can’t wait for the enivitable class action lawsuits agianst the IPCC if they start messing with mother nature, trying to control nature…Just think if they were actually able to cool down the earth, and I get in a accident in my car, and it is caused by the snow on the road brought on my the global cooling of the “fix” …..I really don’t think they have thought this through. You CANNOT mess with mother nature. An act of God, will become an act of negligence by the so-called geoengineering scientists who work for the IPCC…
    This whole AGW theory is a scam, and it is unravelling fast. All they want really is to control the global finances, and keep us taxed to death.
    This whole story line is rediculous.

  89. Hmmmn.

    As a “so-called skeptic” Robt is wondering just how the energy from those “so-called” 1000 windmills is going to get to those “so-called” millions of bubbles in the sea?

    Lead-acid batteries maybe?

    Long, long insulated copper power lines?

    Electricity (that doesn’t exist) to low-pressure hydrogen gas (that doesn’t exist) to high-pressure hydrogen gas to shipment pipelines (that don’t exist) to port facilities (that don’t exist) to ships (that don’t exist) to storage tanks (that don’t exist) on the ships to engines (that don’t exist) to propellers (that don’t exist) and mixers (that don’t exist) — none of which obviouslt require energy or materials to create?

  90. Sirtx:

    Please add, to your so-called timeline about global warming research, a plot of the power, budgets, and influence of the global warming political industry.

    You may, if you can find any, add a plot of the amount of money received by skeptics to alert innocent people about the global warming fraud.

    Hint: Be careful of your plot scale factors: 80,000,000,000.00 in pro-alarmist money to socialist and government employees (university “so-called” scientists) is many times larger than the one grant given one time to the Heartland Institute.

  91. Long time ago the French and the English had a little local difference of opinion. The French used their superior technology to resolve the problem by sending to the English King (I forget his name, somebody 5, I think) a large box of tennis balls. Didn’t actually resolve the problem, rather contributed to an
    unintended solution. Suppose we emulated the Dauphin and covered the oceans of the globe with tennis balls? Would it cool things down? Or warm them up?

  92. RACookPE1978 (11:42:55)

    I’ll take a look at your proposal, but please provide urls with this info, and I’ll review it.

    As you may notice in my “so-called” timeline (as you call it), I have links to papers, and evidence backing the posts in the timeline.

    I also distinguish between science [S], policy [P], media [M] and consensus [C] to help the reader separate the information. I have noticed that many blog sites mix this all up, confusing the readers. Who knows, maybe they just don’t know the difference. Or, maybe it’s intentional.

    Anyway, what you are claiming (need those links) would probably fall under policy [P] or media [M]. If somehow you are saying this is affecting the science, I’d be interested to see how you or others link that claim to science [S] – with links to the evidence for those claims.

    I’m willing to learn. Are you willing to teach?

    PS – If WUWT feels this is drifting off-topic (sorry, Mr. Watts), you can certainly add your suggestions directly on my site as comments. Don’t worry. I don’t bite… much. ;-)

  93. Thanks, Julian. ( 21;23;09 )

    If space permits , i’ll add Emiliania huxleyi to the existing discussion of the reflectivity of prochlorococci ( eg synechoccus) and microcystis in the draft you haven’t read – you are reacting to one science reporter’s take on a conference presentation based on a draft still under review.

    It’s rare for a physics paper to lead to the reexamination of systems ecology issues , but while we wait on the slow grinding mills of peer review- and the attendant embargo, you may want to read Paul Crutzen’s paper on GeoE , which appeared in _Climatic Change_ four years ago, and inspired me to propose inverting the physics of aerosol forcing – hydrosols really are clouds turned inside out.

    here ends my commentary. If you want to know more, read the paper when it appears.

  94. Sorry the above/ below came out as myco for micro and with an extra o in synechoccus – biology isn’t Spellchecker’s metier.

    Reply: Fixed, I think ~ ctm

  95. hmmm….what’s the albedo of a polar bear? Maybe we could geo-engineer our large cities if we breed a lot of them and let them run around, free and happy!

    I’d start with Washington, D.C. and move onwards with San Fran, NYC etc.

    In Chicago, we have coyotes and now mountain lions from the Dakotas! Nothing like an apex predator to liven up your life!

    …makes about as much sense as this other stupid junk they propose…

  96. Moderators – the troll “slrtx” is promoting his warmist site within these comments. Neat trick – go to the foremost skeptic blog and say inflammatory stuff with lots of links to your own blog. Instant increase in readership.

  97. I like slrtx’s last link in the climate-science-timeline page where the Mount Pinatubo eruption confirms the climate sensitivities in the models.

    A reduction of 8 watts/metre2 in solar energy from the volcanic aerosols produces a 0.4C decline in temperatures (or 0.05K/watt/m2) and this is consistent with the climate models which predict a 3.0C temperature change from just 3.7 watts/m2 (or 0.81K/watt/m2). Missed it by only a factor of more than 10.

  98. I think scientists should contemplate the formation of the “bozone layer” to protect the universe from the Earth’s harmful effects.

  99. I suggest these wackos keep their pilot projects down to a small scale. I know these psychos want millions for experiments to test their wild notions.
    Buy a wading pool at Wallmart. Buy some frijole burritos at Taco Bell. Add a bar of soap in the pool and generate bubbles. Tell us how it goes. Make sure the tinfoil hat is on properly.

  100. Another potentially unconsidered side affect: Rise in sea level due to displacement caused by millions of tiny bubbles?

  101. The part that worries me is that adding dense small air bubbles to a water column is a technique that aquarists frequently use to separate dissolved proteins from the water. This helps to reduce the build up of nitrate/nitrite wastes in these closed systems. The Oceans have evolved complex cycles to consume these wastes and it promotes production in the system. The other problem is this rarely remains the nice white reflective foam in use but often becomes a dirty snanky brownish color like oxidised meringue on a pie that’s been left out of the refrigerator too long.

  102. Mike J (14:10:07)

    Sorry you think I’m a troll. I was of the understanding that this was a skeptic site. Did I misunderstand something? Did I post something offensive?

    Trying to plead to the moderators to stifle other opinions does not sound very open-minded. Gee, if I didn’t know better, I’d say you’re starting to sound like Mann and Jones in their “climategate” emails.

    As for posting the links…. Nothing more than what others have done here, or on other blogs.

    As fellow skeptics, I just thought some of you would like to see the timeline, and offer your perspectives to it. If I missed something, or if I am not correct about something, feel free to correct me. But please cite references.

    As I posted previously, I don’t want to detract from the topic at hand. So, I won’t post on this thread any more, unless someone needs clarification about my intentions.

    I’m just your average, everyday skeptic. Just like you.

  103. As I have stated earlier, I think the biggest danger right now is that one of these carbonophobic schemes might actually be so effective that it initiates an unstoppable, run-away CO2 removal process in the atmosphere. If a process such as this got out of control, it might cause a world-wide total crop failure due to the lack of CO2 in the atmosphere. Someone commented that this might qualify as an ‘extinction event’ if it went too far.

    At one time, this prospect might have been considered good material for a grade B horror film — I doubt that is true now.

  104. To slrtx:
    I actually like how you are presenting your arguements, but I feel you should review your own “Baloney Detection Kit” as it pertains to AGW. It appears that you feel the “data” is beyond reproach and if you’ve been paying attention, much work is now being done to show the data is suspect to say the least. Also to cite papers as “peer reviewed” we have come to learn what that’s about as well. Not only should you apply your “kit” to an overall theory, you must break down that theory into it’s substative parts and apply your “kit” to that as well. By the way, I love the Baloney Kit, just use it dispassionately.
    Regards -Paul

  105. slrtx (18:01:37) :

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/people-believe-anything-they-read/
    “Government Entity / Department
    Unless you are a conspiracy theorist and think the government is responsible for 9-11, is hiding the truth about the moon landings, etc., you can typically trust what’s posted at these sites. There have been times where administrations attempt to influence the content of these sites, but this is rare, and usually is exposed quickly. This does not include web material posted by specific politicians (see next point).”

    Oh come on.

  106. About Slrtx — Google him to get a taste of his “rationality”. He regularly calls people “deniers”, “nutcase conservatards”, racists, a waste of skin, etc., etc. He is quite childish and nasty. He hurts his “cause” with his vitriol, yet is obviously far too intelligent to see this.

  107. Paul Kuster (18:25:07)

    ” It appears that you feel the ‘data’ is beyond reproach and if you’ve been paying attention, much work is now being done to show the data is suspect to say the least.”

    Interesting response. Where did I claim the data was “beyond reproach?” I’m a skeptic. I go where the data leads. But, I don’t claim to be an expert. Just your average Joe. But I take a slightly different view of things.

    Let’s just say I’ll tend to believe the experts. I know, as some will claim, the experts have it wrong. I must say, judging by the blogs, there are a lot of experts out there who don’t publish all that good work they’re doing.

    But somehow now the entire peer-review process suspect? As you said about “‘peer reviewed’ we have come to learn what that’s about as well.” And what have you learned?

    So, let’s consider what’s baloney…..

    “A process of subjecting an author’s scholarly work, research, or ideas to the scrutiny of others who are experts in the same field. Peer review requires a community of experts in a given (and often narrowly defined) field, who are qualified and able to perform impartial review. Impartial review, especially of work in less narrowly defined or inter-disciplinary fields, may be difficult to accomplish; and the significance (good or bad) of an idea may never be widely appreciated among its contemporaries.”
    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Peer_review

    (Yeah, I know, Wikipedia. But it’s a fair description of the process.)

    The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is a PROCESS. Now, just what process would you propose in it’s place? Blogging it?

    This is where rational skepticism diverges from irrational crankism. So we throw out a well-known, stable, provable process in place of … what????? And claim that the process is somehow corrupt or broken with the proof of …what????

    Forgive me, but my skepticism rises just a hair when I see those claims.

    It’s not enough to be a self-proclaimed “skeptic”, you really need to be a “rational skeptic”. Otherwise, you run the risk of looking like a crank. I’m not saying you are a crank. I’m just saying you run the risk of looking like one.

    http://www.skeptic.com/about_us/manifesto.html

    I’m open minded. I just don’t let my brains fall out.

    Now, about those links supporting your claims. I have them on my pages. Got any you wish to share? I am willing to see where you get your ideas. Who knows, I may post them on my page. (I just added the Soon and Baliunas issue – see 2003). More to come!

  108. Mojo (19:35:28)

    You’re right. I absolutely admit that I did do that. And I am not proud of it. I was falling into the same junk as the same types on the other side of the issue. So, I decided to step back, count to 10, and start over.

    Name-calling serves no useful purpose, right?

    I’ve come to realize that there can indeed be skeptics on both sides of these issues.

    I must say though, given the level of rhetoric coming from some here, that “rationality” goes both ways.

  109. These kinds of proposals to solve climate changes by some untested eco-engineering process really scare me. It is one thing to think up a scheme to get money from the rich governments by trading in carbon credits, but it is quite another to use a man made mechanism to alter the climate of the earth. This whole idea is a product of religious fanaticism. The next thing you know these arrogant climate fixers will start pushing skeptics into the mouth of a volcano to appease the green gods and foster a major eruption to cool the planet A foam experiment like this proposal could be a potential ecological disaster. The problem with these ideas to fix the climate change is that there is no way to prove that they work on the scale of the globe and there is no reliable way to conduct complete fault tree analyses of unintended consequences or unplanned actions. Other preposterous ideas for human intervention have been advanced to solve global warming. My concern is that some major governmental agency will actually fund and implement the “cure for global warming” that will kill us all.

  110. I had to check the date after starting to read this one! Thought Anthony was pulling and April 1st joke on us!

  111. slrtx- I will happily supply links to what I have to say. Perhaps I may continue this exchange on your site? Be patient however, I do work for a living and it may take some time. -Thanks -Paul

    By the way, by questioning the sources of the data, and to hear baloney that the “science is settled” is enough to pique my skeptisism and to question ALL aspects of AGW. My “brains ” are still fully intact within my cranium and I’m quite prepared to lose on this debate. Are you?

  112. davidmhoffer (21:16:47) :

    When Seitz plugged that data into a climate model, he found that the microbubble strategy could cool the planet by up to 3°C>>

    Ah yes, a computer model said so. Of course the computer models have been wrong about everything else. Which in turn means that he doesn’t have a freakin clue what would actually happen if we did this.

    I’m beginning to think this computer [model] starred in several episodes of The Twilight Zone.

  113. Paul Kuster (03:18:52)

    Sure. Come on over.

    I’m more than willing to discuss the “science is settled” stuff – as long as the topic stays on science.

    In case you haven’t see this already, here is an explanation of the context of my site:

    http://www.slrtx.com/blog/climate-change-debate/

    Science only. Solid references. And no ideology / policy debates, please. I really don’t care about Al Gore, and any wacky ideas that some scientist has to “fix” the problem – as the topic of this thread. (Not a complaint – just an observation.)

    BTW – I totally agree. This foamy thing sounds like a really wacky idea. Personally, I’m not sure what can be done about climate change. But, necessity IS the mother of invention.

  114. sirtx:

    The peer-review process may not be perfect, but it is a PROCESS. Now, just what process would you propose in it’s place? Blogging it?

    It’s working for VS and his unit root idea.

    Various posters here have suggested more structured approaches to this matter, including moderated and structured online peer-reviewing and document modification. There could be a separate section for the “peanut gallery” of uncredentialed commenters to offer remarks, or maybe their posts could be shown in a light gray, so they could be skipped. Maybe moderators could adjust the gray level in accordance with their evaluation of the merits of the post.

    (There are lots of details I’ve missed.)

  115. Roger Knights (17:34:03)

    Tell you what. I promise to dig into the peer review thing & see what I can find. I may post my results on my site.

    From my own personal experience, I can say that papers that are rejected, are often given multiple chances to correct & resubmit. A lot of the papers I’ve come across are published after 2-5 revisions. It’s a rough process.

    But if someone thinks they’re getting a bum rap at one journal, they could always find another.

    If they keep getting rejected, then perhaps the paper just isn’t that good. Rejection is always a kick to the ego. Some folks just don’t handle it well. Some may even claim it’s a conspiracy to keep them quiet.

    Yes. Perhaps there should be some way to make the process more uniform. Not sure how that would work. The problem is, a uniform set of rules may create an atmosphere of collusion, creating the exact scenario some claim is happening today.

    Until then, it’s a process that can be identified and monitored by peers in the field. There’s nothing secret about it, except the reviewers are anonymous to keep them from being swayed by direct communication with the authors.

    It ain’t perfect, but it’s worked well so far. Yes. Some junk papers do get through, (e.g. Soon and Baliunas in 2003) but on the whole, it works pretty well.

  116. It is a sad result of Climategate that the term ‘peer reviewed’ has now taken on the connotation among many as being suggestive of ‘crony reviewed.’ That’s especially true when the term is used defensively.

Comments are closed.