Willis covered this before on WUWT, with Every Silver Lining Has A Cloud. Its baaaack.
Figure 1. Artist’s conception of cloud-making ships. Of course, the first storm would flip this over immediately, but heck, it’s only a fantasy, so who cares? SOURCE
From the University of Washington and the Royal Society
Experiment would test cloud geoengineering as way to slow warming
Even though it sounds like science fiction, researchers are taking a second look at a controversial idea that uses futuristic ships to shoot salt water high into the sky over the oceans, creating clouds that reflect sunlight and thus counter global warming.
University of Washington atmospheric physicist Rob Wood describes a possible way to run an experiment to test the concept on a small scale in a comprehensive paper published this month in the journal Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society.
The point of the paper — which includes updates on the latest study into what kind of ship would be best to spray the salt water into the sky, how large the water droplets should be and the potential climatological impacts — is to encourage more scientists to consider the idea of marine cloud brightening and even poke holes in it. He and a colleague detail an experiment to test the concept.
“What we’re trying to do is make the case that this is a beneficial experiment to do,” Wood said. With enough interest in cloud brightening from the scientific community, funding for an experiment may become possible, he said.
The theory behind so-called marine cloud brightening is that adding particles, in this case sea salt, to the sky over the ocean would form large, long-lived clouds. Clouds appear when water forms around particles. Since there is a limited amount of water in the air, adding more particles creates more, but smaller, droplets.
“It turns out that a greater number of smaller drops has a greater surface area, so it means the clouds reflect a greater amount of light back into space,” Wood said. That creates a cooling effect on Earth.
Marine cloud brightening is part of a broader concept known as geoengineering which encompasses efforts to use technology to manipulate the environment. Brightening, like other geoengineering proposals, is controversial for its ethical and political ramifications and the uncertainty around its impact. But those aren’t reasons not to study it, Wood said.
“I would rather that responsible scientists test the idea than groups that might have a vested interest in proving its success,” he said. The danger with private organizations experimenting with geoengineering is that “there is an assumption that it’s got to work,” he said.
Wood and his colleagues propose trying a small-scale experiment to test feasibility and begin to study effects. The test should start by deploying sprayers on a ship or barge to ensure that they can inject enough particles of the targeted size to the appropriate elevation, Wood and a colleague wrote in the report. An airplane equipped with sensors would study the physical and chemical characteristics of the particles and how they disperse.
The next step would be to use additional airplanes to study how the cloud develops and how long it remains. The final phase of the experiment would send out five to 10 ships spread out across a 100 kilometer, or 62 mile, stretch. The resulting clouds would be large enough so that scientists could use satellites to examine them and their ability to reflect light.
Wood said there is very little chance of long-term effects from such an experiment. Based on studies of pollutants, which emit particles that cause a similar reaction in clouds, scientists know that the impact of adding particles to clouds lasts only a few days.
Still, such an experiment would be unusual in the world of climate science, where scientists observe rather than actually try to change the atmosphere.
Wood notes that running the experiment would advance knowledge around how particles like pollutants impact the climate, although the main reason to do it would be to test the geoengineering idea.
A phenomenon that inspired marine cloud brightening is ship trails: clouds that form behind the paths of ships crossing the ocean, similar to the trails that airplanes leave across the sky. Ship trails form around particles released from burning fuel.
But in some cases ship trails make clouds darker. “We don’t really know why that is,” Wood said.
Despite increasing interest from scientists like Wood, there is still strong resistance to cloud brightening.
“It’s a quick-fix idea when really what we need to do is move toward a low-carbon emission economy, which is turning out to be a long process,” Wood said. “I think we ought to know about the possibilities, just in case.”
The authors of the paper are treading cautiously.
“We stress that there would be no justification for deployment of [marine cloud brightening] unless it was clearly established that no significant adverse consequences would result. There would also need to be an international agreement firmly in favor of such action,” they wrote in the paper’s summary.
There are 25 authors on the paper, including scientists from University of Leeds, University of Edinburgh and the Pacific Northwest National Laboratory. The lead author is John Latham of the National Center for Atmospheric Research and the University of Manchester, who pioneered the idea of marine cloud brightening.
Wood’s research was supported by the UW College of the Environment Institute.

When this last came up, I laughed till my abs hurt. Though I wish them well (they will need a miracle), it is the most numb nuts idea I’ve seen in all my years.
Steve Garcia
The could power them with windmills. The faster they go, the more power they could generate.
No, wait, isn’t there an obesity epidemic? Treadmills! Maybe both, we’ll need to replace the lost solar power.
Maybe we could just chrome-plate Russia and India, they like Bling, right?
And of course, spraying water vapour into the air raises the specific heat potential, slowing down the cooling effects of convection. DOH !!!
Testing for validation is mere technology. Testing for falsification is science.
Can we conclude the authors agree with Dr. Spencer and not with Dessler and Trenberth?
The following is from Dr. Spencer’s article:
http://www.drroyspencer.com/2011/09/a-primer-on-our-claim-that-clouds-cause-temperature-change/
“The Dessler and Trenberth contrary view – as near as I can tell – is that clouds cannot cause temperature change, unless those cloud changes were themselves caused by some previous temperature change. In other words, they believe cloud changes can always be traced to some prior temperature change. This temperature-forcing-clouds direction of causation is “cloud feedback”.
Put more simply, Dessler and Trenberth believe causation between temperature and clouds only flows in one direction :
Temperature Change => Cloud Change,
whereas we and others believe (and have demonstrated) it flows in both directions,
Temperature Change Cloud Change.”
If these people are looking for a cooling method with no significant negative effect, then they are wasting their time looking at this idea. All of these shading ideas like space mirrors, high altitude sulfur injection, and cloud spraying, share a common flaw, they reduce the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface. That is going to make for less photosynthisis. The greenhouse effect with CO2 doesn’t work by increasing the amount of sunlight that reaches the surface, it works by slowing the departure of energy into space. Shading doesn’t fix the problem, it just counters it with an opposing harmful effect. I think it might still be a good idea, but I don’t think it is time to start spending money to research it yet because we can stand to wait to see if the recent leveling off of temps holds.
Aren’t more clouds supposed to be positive feedback warming; ah ; just forget that; it’s only the high clouds that cause warming; you know the ones that are too high to cast a shadow.
I’m NOT a mechanical engineer, nor a chemist, so I have no idea what the design function of those anticlastic surfaces is, so maybe these researchers can enlighten us. I can attaest to them having no useful optical function whatsoever, and sailboats try to avoid anticlastic surfaces at all costs, so they can’t be for motive power.
Maybe it’s for that green feel good purpose; you know, the hope and change thing. I can see putting out to sea in that thing and hoping to see some change in something. Wouldn’t they be better off extruding the clouds from the bottom since low clouds are supposed to cool more than high clouds; Dang I’ve got it; those bloody things are bellows assemblies, so they can crank them up and down to extrude the clouds, at what eveer altitude it takes to produce the required amount of cooling.
Jim Hansen can be given control of the bellows, because he’s pretty good at cranking things up and down. You crank yesterday’s observations down, and you crank tomorrows predictions; excuse me that’s projections; up.
Looks like an Italian designer to me; they are pretty good at the avant garde styling sans function; some beautiful Disco Volante motor cars they designed over half a century ago.
Rosco says:
” serious drought in 1902 – yes apparently serious drought occurred long before CO2 started its inexorable upwards march”.
Rubbish !!.. Australia NEVER had ay droughts before about 1950.
Not around the time of Federation anyway, they just made up the term “Federation Drought” to fool people in the future
Australia’s climate was totally benign before CO2 came into being in the 1980’s .
/sarc
You mean a ship with 1000 square meters of sail does not flip over but this one will, even without sails? How did you learn that? What if you put a fin to the bottom? What if you simply construct one that doesn’t flip, which is coincidencially what ship designers do? Why not just go with the notion that if one were ever built of course it would not flip? Artists’ renditions of space ships and satellites also wouldn’t fly, but we do not let artists build anything in real life.
If we were to build more nuclear power stations, we would get the cloud making for free from the cooling towers 😉
The latest edition of Physics Today has a very interesting article about jobs for PhD Physicists.
Atomic and Molecular Physicists are sort of at the bottom of the barrel in a sense. There seems to be the fewest temporary jobs available for PhDs in that group, maybe for 1% or less of graduate PhDs in that field. So what happens to the rest ? Well maybe 24%, one in four actually get a permanent job; well they say “potentially ” permanent, and we all know the value of that word in science. So three out of four are doomed to take post doctoral appointments; whatever that is.
Astronomy and Astrophysics PhDs have about five times as many temporary possibilites, but only about 21% possibly permanent positions, but slightly fewer post doc appointments than at the wee end of the physics scale.
Top of the heap is “Applied Physics” (fancy that). with just less than 50% post doc appoinments, and about 47% “possibly” permanent jobs; followed by Materials science with similar numbers, and Optics and Photonics starting the upward trend in post doc appointments, and about 35% possibly permanent job opportunities.
Over all categories of PhD graduates, it seems there are only 30% possibly permanent job opportunities.
So what the hell did I know 55 years ago when I exited academia as a graduated undergraduate, and went into Applied Physics, and Optics & Photonics, with some minor dabbling in Materials science (solid state Physics).
Seemed like a good plan at the time; at least I’ve never been without either a job or in field work since then.
If we were to build more nuclear power stations, we would get the cloud making for free from the cooling towers 😉
Getting rid of the electrostatic precipitators from coal fired power stations would be much more effective. They were mandated in the USA in 1977. Co-incidentally(?), the time when temperatures started to rise.
“I would rather that responsible scientists test the idea than groups that might have a vested interest in proving its success,” he said.
The Rent Boys of Cake Science don’t trust engineers because we like to make things actually work.
@Ack. You wrote: “Wouldn’t the power requirements be enormous? Which CO2 spewing fuel would be required to power these ships.”
Nope. Doesn’t count if it’s green.
The geoengineering climate scientists are the true mad scientists of today who are literally obsessed with trying out their little pet projects on the climate no matter what the inherent risks may be.
Planes dropping sulfates into the stratosphere (duh, that is where the Ozone layer is and what do sulfates do to Ozone). Shooting salt water into the layer where clouds form? What about bird life in the way, what about marine animals which will sucked up into the pumps? How do you keep your ship afloat when the each action provides an equal and opposite reaction force sinks the ship in about 2 seconds. Hopefully no person will be on board when they turn on the pumps shooting water 1 km into the air because the ship will be driven downwards by the same 1 km.
Obsessive compulsive disorder with fixation on mad scientist / climate scientist ideas.
People are missing the point, here and in the Great Barrier Reef posting. Scientists who suggest small-scale solutions which can be tested and implemented run the serious risk of being proven wrong. Scientists who suggest nutjob mega-schemes which can’t be put into practice can NEVER be proven wrong, and can go on lecturing, writing and enjoying the respect and admiration of their colleagues for many decades. Why mess with reality when you can do much better by fantasising?
Merovign says:
August 20, 2012 at 5:09 pm
The could power them with windmills. The faster they go, the more power they could generate.
No, wait, isn’t there an obesity epidemic? Treadmills! Maybe both, we’ll need to replace the lost solar power.
====================================================================
The answer to the power problem is simple. Take all the dogs from all the animal shelters and spread them out over the fleet of clown …er… cloud ships. Put an anaerobic digester on each and, voila!, we’re all saved!
But what happens when the ocean is de-salinated? Will we then need to build a fleet of airships to gather up the salt and sprinkle it back into the ocean before the land plants suffer from salted-rain?
@Bill Illis: They just have to make it really really buoyant and make sure the weight of the material ejected upward doesn’t weigh more than the added bouyancy….ooh I know, they can have paired pumps, one ejecting down and one ejecting up. The added mixing of warm surface water at depth should really help that global warming thing by pushing the surface heat safely out of reach at the bottom of the ocean. Then in the thousand or so years it takes it to work back to the surface, maybe it will stave off the peak of the next glaciation cycle. Our Great X30 grandchildren can thank us then for the warmth! /sarc.
From the Royal Society. Say no more…
Has anyone considered Chubby Rain?
A number of you have expressed concern about the stability of the ship and that it looks likely to capsize easily. Please don’t be concerned, climate scientists have modelled the stability to an accuracy of 6 dp and found the design to be extremely stable. They are now looking for a suitable name, might I suggest the ‘Mary Rose’.
So they are going to seed clouds with SALT WATER. What happens when those clouds drift over land and drop their salt water as rain?
Kudos to joated for using the French spelling of “wazoo” (wazzou). Formidable!
Jonathan Smith says:
August 20, 2012 at 8:05 pm
…They are now looking for a suitable name, might I suggest the ‘Mary Rose’.
====================================================================
The United Nations’ Ships:
UNS Airhead?
UNS ShakeorBake?
I don’t have time to change this but, then again, maybe there’s no need to.
Joni Mitchell
Both Sides, Now
(2nd and 3rd stanzas)
But now they only block the sun
They rain and snow on everyone
So many things I would have done
But clouds got in my way
I’ve looked at clouds from both sides now
From up and down, and still somehow
It’s cloud illusions I recall
I really don’t know clouds at all