From the American Association for the Advancement of Science, more ideas on geoengineering:
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.
Discover more from Watts Up With That?
Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.
“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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Who can make money out of thin air? The bubble man can.
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.
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*
…the microbubble strategy could also help conserve water by reducing evaporation…
And where does the rain come from? Global drought, anyone?
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?
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!
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:
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
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.
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…
“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?
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.
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.
On the positive side, bubbling air into the ocean dead-zones will reoxygenate them.
In terms of cooling the planet, please.
Mike Ramsey
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
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.
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:
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.
“…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
Willis,
With all these boats……………………
And all that grant money…………….
How about a job for me?