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.
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.
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?
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.
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?
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. 😉
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.
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
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…
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.
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.
I think scientists should contemplate the formation of the “bozone layer” to protect the universe from the Earth’s harmful effects.
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.
Another potentially unconsidered side affect: Rise in sea level due to displacement caused by millions of tiny bubbles?
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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!
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.
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.
I had to check the date after starting to read this one! Thought Anthony was pulling and April 1st joke on us!
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?
Dr.Seitz, FYI nature does this job free of charge, it is called “White Cap”.
https://www.fnmoc.navy.mil/wxmap_cgi/cgi-bin/wxmap_all.cgi?type=prod&area=ngp_glo&prod=whitecap&dtg=2010032812&set=SeaState