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.
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.
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.
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.)
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.
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.