Latest Green Idea: Pouring Millions of Tons of Bubble Mix into the Sea


Guest essay by Eric Worrall

A new study suggests that large ocean going ships could help reduce global warming, by pouring surfactants into their wake, to extend the life of the shiny bubbles churned up by ship’s propellers.

According to the Huffington Post;

… Crook and her co-authors maintain that their climate model shows the scheme could bring a 0.5-degree Celsius reduction in the Earth’s average surface temperature by 2069, helping to offset the 2-degree warming expected by then.

According to Crook, the effect is comparable to those achieved by other so-called geoengineering schemes that have been proposed in recent years.

Of course, those bubbles won’t resist popping just because we want them to. The scheme calls for the ocean-going ships to pump out a stream of chemicals known as surfactants as they move along. Surfactants help prevent popping by affecting the surface tension of water — at the same time making the wakes a bit whiter than they would be ordinarily.

But it’s not clear whether the scheme would be safe for marine life. And then there’s the matter of its effect on air quality.

“Previous research suggests surfactants reduce the amount of CO2 uptake by the ocean, which would mean by adding surfactant we might cause atmospheric CO2 to go up,” Crook said. “But by how much and whether the resulting warming from the extra CO2 would outweigh the increased albedo is unknown. This could be a show-stopper.” …

Read more:

The abstract of the study;

Solar radiation management schemes could potentially alleviate the impacts of global warming. One such scheme could be to brighten the surface of the ocean by increasing the albedo and areal extent of bubbles in the wakes of existing shipping. Here we show that ship wake bubble lifetimes would need to be extended from minutes to days, requiring the addition of surfactant, for ship wake area to be increased enough to have a significant forcing. We use a global climate model to simulate brightening the wakes of existing shipping by increasing wake albedo by 0.2 and increasing wake lifetime by ×1440. This yields a global mean radiative forcing of -0.9 ± 0.6 Wm-2 (-1.8 ± 0.9 Wm-2 in the Northern Hemisphere) and a 0.5 °C reduction of global mean surface temperature with greater cooling over land and in the Northern Hemisphere, partially offsetting greenhouse gas warming. Tropical precipitation shifts southwards but remains within current variability. The hemispheric forcing asymmetry of this scheme is due to the asymmetry in the distribution of existing shipping. If wake lifetime could reach ~3 months, the global mean radiative forcing could potentially reach -3 Wm-2. Increasing wake area through increasing bubble lifetime could result in a greater temperature reduction but regional precipitation would likely deviate further from current climatology as suggested by results from our uniform ocean albedo simulation. Alternatively, additional ships specifically for the purpose of geoengineering could be used to produce a larger and more hemispherically symmetrical forcing.

Read more:

Pouring enough surfactant into the sea, to allow bubbles to survive for 10 days in open water, might kill a lot of sea life. Surfactants are often used in cleaning products, such as dish washing liquid, because they are very effective at breaking up organic matter.

0 0 votes
Article Rating
Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
February 7, 2016 2:30 am

A badly thought out idea from a bunch dedicated to ruining the environment and reported by a rubbish reporter.

Reply to  johnmarshall
February 7, 2016 3:16 am

Ah but think of al of the grant money they got for that foolishness.

Reply to  Gus
February 7, 2016 6:28 am

Does this mean we can go back to flushing tons of persistent detergents out to sea?…
Sufactant is just another word for soap and detergents…
The stupidity of dumping tons of detergent into the oceans seems lost on these folks… but it brings a new maening to Tide Detergent…

Reply to  Gus
February 7, 2016 7:58 am

oh! oh! I know.. polystyrene cups! and and PET bottles, we could throw ALL the things in the ocean to reduce evaporation and reflect all that nasty heat that humans make. er, sunlight.. um, the warming stuff, we can make that go back somewhere – yay! Give me grant money.. give it to me faster..

Reply to  Gus
February 7, 2016 1:17 pm

One thing that would reduce evaporation from the ocean would be a layer of oil. Are they next going to propose deep well drilling and, once they strike oil, just let it float to the top? That would work. Sorta.

Reply to  Gus
February 7, 2016 7:27 pm

“Are they next going to propose deep well drilling and, once they strike oil, just let it float to the top?”
No, oil is too dark.
What about oil painted in white?

Reply to  johnmarshall
February 7, 2016 5:56 am

“A badly thought out idea from a bunch dedicated to ruining the environment…”
I agree.
it takes about ten seconds for anyone with their head screwed on right (or screwed on at all) to see the inanity and insanity of pouring an actual pollutant in the ocean to combat the imaginary affects of an imaginary pollutant (life giving CO2).
What the hell is wrong with these people?
Do they actually consider themselves to be scientists?

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 6:06 am

Are they even humans?

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 7:05 am

” Are they even humans?”
The debate rages on, on this important question.
Funny how many separate debates were sparked when the debate on a settled science was declared over.

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 7:50 pm

“it takes about ten seconds for anyone with their head screwed on right (or screwed on at all) to see the inanity and insanity…”
They have told repeatedly “keep an open mind”; after many brain accidents, the Surgeon General made this warning message mandatory:
“Keep an open mind, but not so open that your brains fall out”

Reply to  johnmarshall
February 7, 2016 7:59 am

Indeed – wasn’t there a huge outcry over the use of surfactants on the Horizon oil spill?
Now its all good because it saves the climate?

Reply to  c1ue
February 7, 2016 10:52 am


Reply to  c1ue
February 7, 2016 12:03 pm

I’m sure that counts as “different”. Don’t ask me how. Undoubtedly one is “evil” and the other warrants a Nobel peace prize. Or something. All I know is that the greens don’t want to live by the same rules or laws of nature and don’t want to be judged the way they judge others, especially when their stupid ideas do such massive amounts of damage to the environment.
They have become what they see in mankind, a plague upon the Earth. Gang Green has set in. We need to amputate.

Reply to  c1ue
February 7, 2016 12:20 pm

Bravo A. D.
Well said.

Reply to  johnmarshall
February 7, 2016 2:31 pm

You have been outstandingly kid to this – kindness again – ‘hypothesis’

February 7, 2016 2:33 am

The part of Roundup that makes ecoloon go crazy is NOT glyphosate (they have to accept that it isn’t extremely toxic), it’s the SURFACTANT.

Reply to  simple-touriste
February 7, 2016 4:35 am

hmm? ya reckon, ?
its the UNLISTED other chem that can be anything at all ,as synergists thats got people worried, and FYI glyphosate is NOT exactly nontoxic,if it bloody well wasnt it wouldnt work!
it doesnt break down on contact with soil as they used to tell us
it can remain in soils and mobile for some time, and even longer in water.
surfectants as soaps..dont worry us “ecoloons” theyre used by many of us to make nonwetting soils in arid areas able to absorb water.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 4:59 am

“FYI glyphosate is NOT exactly nontoxic,if it bloody well wasnt it wouldnt work!”
Obviously, if you are a plant, it is toxic.
You look very organic anyway. Your message seems written by a plant.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 6:02 am

Oz, Roundup, even it it’s concentrated form, is one of the safest substances ever tested as a toxin. And it has been tested perhaps more than any other substance in existence.
You say that if it was not toxic, it would not work. But this mistaken sentiment is incorrect, as you seem to be implying that it’s toxicity to plants makes it necessarily toxic to humans or animal life.
If this is your belief, then you have no idea how and why it is toxic to plants, and hence why it is not toxic to things that are not plants.
You have many substances in your kitchen, such as salt for example, which are far more toxic than Roundup.

Fly over Bob
Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 6:13 am

Simple-touriste, Please examine the food chain. Do you eat to live or live to eat? Either way Plants are required.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 6:18 am

“Either way Plants are required.”
I have no idea what you are trying to say.
(Please explain what you think I was saying.)

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 7:49 am

You said :

“…Roundup, even it it’s concentrated form, is one of the safest substances ever tested as a toxin.

I suggest you do a search on Google Scholar for “seneff + glyphosate”. I get 238 results. Read the first 2 or 3 then search (regular) Google for the same. There has been quite a dust-up on the safety of glyphosate starting around 2013. I’d say the jury is still out on it.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 12:03 pm

On my Roundup container it tells me not to use it near garden ponds or other places where there might be fish.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 12:22 pm

There are separate products that are identical with different names that are used for aquatic plants.
And they enforce that stuff too.
I work in the lake and wetlands management industry.
Every pond in Florida would be able to be crossed on foot within a few months if not sprayed with aquatic herbicides and algaecides.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 12:25 pm

A comparison of LD50s for some herbicides and other more commonly encountered substances:

Joe Crawford
Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 3:18 pm

Thanks for the reference. Are their any long term exposure test similar to the oral LD50s? According to Google (for what that’s worth) there are now 26 countries than have either banned or partially banned GMOs, but it doesn’t specifically say Roundup or glyphosate.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 6:27 pm

Genetically Modified Organisms that are related to glyphosate use do not contain glyphosate, or anything like it.
Rather, these are plants which have had a clone of a naturally occurring gene or genes inserted into their genome.
The gene in question, in the case of Roundup Ready Corn, for example, codes for a variant of an enzyme that occurs in plants. The normal variant is the one which is blocked by glyphosate, but the resistant variant is not blocked by glyphosate, and so no harm is done to the plant by exposure to glyphosate.
This allows farmers to spray roundup after the corn has begun to grow, and thus greatly increases yields over what occurs when herbicides cannot be used and weeds interfere with the growth of the corn crop.
Roundup works, specifically, by blocking the production of certain amino acids. We get these amino acids from the food we eat. So glyphosate has no effect on mammals. It is quickly passed in urine and feces after exposure or accidental ingestion (or in cases of purposeful ingestion) in an unchanged state. Almost all of the amount ingested is quickly eliminated, and the rest takes slightly longer.
Regarding purpose ingestion, there have been many cases of individuals attempting to kill themselves by drinking glyphosate, including highly concentrated Roundup. The amounts consumed have been incredible, and most of the people had minimal ill effects. Some have had injuries due to corrosive effects, and I believe these were due to adjuvants and not the glyphosate.
In many toxicity tables, the amount listed for LD50 is a greater than quantity, since they were unable to force a sufficient amount of the chemical into any of the tested animals to kill any of them. I believe this was the case with dogs. They could not be killed no matter how much they were given.
I had some very specific information in some very interesting reports, but the links are on another computer than the one I am using right now. If I can come across them I will post them.
No studies have been able to find any evidence of long or short term risks to humans. And they have tried, and tried, and tried to find a reason to ban it.
But it is simply incredibly safe, as much as some would very much like to believe otherwise.
Hard to understand why…some people just need something to hate i suppose, or just cannot believe something that makes plants wither and die could be safe to mammals. Such beliefs are based on emotion and lack of context and lack of knowledge of the relevant biochemistry.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 8:22 pm

“there are now 26 countries than have either banned or partially banned GMOs, but it doesn’t specifically say Roundup or glyphosate.”
Ségolène Royal (mother of François “I, President” Hollande, and Minister of Enviro-crazy-stuff, most precious gift to humorists and imitators after Hollande and Sarkozy) was filmed removing bottles of Roundup from shells:
(Yes, she likes PR stunts.)
But the Roundup wasn’t actually removed from stores: merchants were only ordered to keep consumers from directly accessing the Roundup, and should give “consumer advice” about herbicide. This was after the much hyped “glyphosate gives you cancer (or maybe not)” CIRC/PAN PR stunt.
About the safety of Roundup: don’t drink soap, the millions of bubbles won’t block the sun but might block your lungs; also, the surfactant makes the glyphosate more dangerous.

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 8, 2016 9:51 pm

It is indeed it’s the surfactant that kills frogs, not the glyphosate. As far as toxicity goes, the LD 50 of glyphosate is 60 times that of vinegar. That is vinegar is 60 times more toxic to rats than glyphosate. It is true that glyphosate is passivated on clay particles, rather than breaking down.

February 7, 2016 2:42 am

…WTF !! Are these idiots trying to rush to the next Little Ice Age ??

Reply to  Marcus
February 7, 2016 2:45 am

More like the No Remaining Life Age.
They hate nature, or something.

Fly over Bob
Reply to  simple-touriste
February 7, 2016 7:30 pm

So plants are required after all.

Reply to  Marcus
February 7, 2016 3:36 am

Years ago when this CAGW boondoggle first got going we were told that the average warming they were talking about would not be uniform. It would not be 2 degrees (or whatever) warmer everyplace. It would be warmer at night and especially towards the poles. Canada and Russia would be warmer but Florida would not really see any warming to speak of. (and the tropics would hardly notice anything)
Now that meme did not scare people much since many would not mind a little more warmth at night and most don’t really care how Canada and Russia deal with a couple of degrees warming. So we soon stopped hearing about warming at night and towards the poles and the scare story shifted. Now it is more like Florida will get so hot the sands will burn your feet in the summer at the beach. (oops, it already does so they may be right!)
The alarmists have no shame.

Reply to  markstoval
February 7, 2016 4:25 am

“most don’t really care how Canada and Russia deal with a couple of degrees warming”
Probably more telling… Canada and Russia would probably WELCOME a couple of degrees of warming. Hah.

Reply to  markstoval
February 7, 2016 6:25 am

Considering that both places are so cold across much or their territory that an unprotected person would quickly die, even in summer, I would have to agree.
Being less fatally frigid does not sound like a bad thing to this kid.

Reply to  markstoval
February 7, 2016 6:37 pm

Menicholas: “Considering that both places are so cold across much or their territory that an unprotected person would quickly die, even in summer,”
That’s what I thought. But I saw a program on the most northerly railway in the world, in Russia, and the presenter (English) was rugged up in too many layers of warm clothes to count, but the Russians were wandering around in shorts and T-shirts – with nothing but snow and ice in all directions!

Reply to  markstoval
February 7, 2016 7:26 pm

Now that you mention it Ron, I did see a show once about some guy up in the Alaskan tundra who was immune to cold somehow.
He was walking around in underwear in sub-zero temperatures, and not just for a few minutes or anything.
And I have it on good authority that people in Minnesota routinely consider 40 degrees “shorts weather”.
But for normal humans…
I suppose for any condition one can consider, there are some people who have an adaptation to it.
The range of human adaptability and genetic variability is incredible.
I personally believe that people are born with many abilities that are lost at various stages of growth if not utilized.
We know about the mammalian dive reflex, where people can survive long periods underwater and be resuscitated if the water is cold enough. Infants are born with a very strong grip in their hands, likely to allow them to hang onto a mother’s hair without falling from birth.
World records in sporting events, that were considered a miraculous achievement of a highly trained adult athlete a few decades ago, are now surpassed by every kid on a high school varsity squad. Where does it end?
My guess is that there are a range of such abilities that we only see an occasional glimpse of.

Reply to  markstoval
February 7, 2016 7:32 pm

“Most of us can learn to live in perfect comfort on higher levels of power. Everyone knows that on any given day there are energies slumbering in him which the incitements of that day do not call forth. Compared with what we ought to be, we are only half awake. It is evident that our organism has stored-up reserves of energy that are ordinarily not called upon ? deeper and deeper strata of explosible material, ready for use by anyone who probes so deep. The human individual usually lives far within his limits.”
– William James

Reply to  markstoval
February 7, 2016 8:36 pm

Just my two cents worth, but if you’re in San Francisco on a foggy day in summer, the locals are rugged up in all kinds of warm clothing. If you see anyone in shorts and T-shirts, they’re from Canada or the UK, basking in the warmth.
76 degrees F at game time earlier. Global warming 4u. Very similar to when I arrived here in 1980.

February 7, 2016 2:44 am

I suggest keel hauling a climate scientist on each vessel. The natural oils in their bodies should do the trick. No more climate catastrophe.

Reply to  Alex
February 7, 2016 2:50 am

Are they “organic”?

Reply to  simple-touriste
February 7, 2016 2:52 am

Of course. They are greenies.

Reply to  Alex
February 7, 2016 3:02 am

Oh Dear !. I always get oils and surfactants confused. Must use a new model. I also forgot that modern vessels have ship screws. Never mind. The fishies get something to eat.

Gary Pearse
Reply to  Alex
February 7, 2016 7:38 am

Lots of bubbles, too.

Mike McMillan
Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 7, 2016 8:04 pm

Might also work for airplanes.

Mike Bromley the Kurd
February 7, 2016 2:49 am


February 7, 2016 2:53 am

What could possibly go wrong ??? So now they want to turn the ocean in one gigantic washing machine.

Reply to  RexAlan
February 7, 2016 3:07 am

I wonder if he was trying to see how far an academic can go or if that was an attempt at trolling other scientists?

Steve Fraser
Reply to  simple-touriste
February 7, 2016 4:53 am


Reply to  RexAlan
February 7, 2016 10:33 am

Sailors could lean over the bow, do their laundry, etc . . .

February 7, 2016 2:56 am

How would the bubbles affect the evaporation and the oxygen and CO2 interchange? How about reducing the penetration of sunlight to phyto organisms and the effect in the interface between sea life and water: think gills, Protozoa, digestion, etc?

Reply to  Tobyw
February 7, 2016 3:03 am

And your point is?………

Reply to  Alex
February 7, 2016 6:48 am

The point is it would really screw up gas exchange and cut down on insolation needed by phytoplankton. A really Dumb Idea!

Reply to  Tobyw
February 7, 2016 12:52 pm

Besides for what you said, the stuff would kill many organism directly…no loss of sunlight required.

February 7, 2016 3:07 am

I used to sell surfactants a thousand years ago. The most common was sodium laurel sulphate.

Reply to  Alex
February 7, 2016 8:10 am

Oh my. What a SLES (y) idea. Fantastic.

Doug Lavers
February 7, 2016 3:15 am

It would be unfortunate if the planet was just starting a cooling trend and this policy was implemented.
Unintended consequences could be devastating.

Reply to  Doug Lavers
February 7, 2016 6:29 am

Not to worry, warmistas are wrong about everything they postulate or recommend, so it may well be that the overall effect on temps would be nil.

Barbara Skolaut
Reply to  Doug Lavers
February 7, 2016 6:40 am

“Unintended consequences could be devastating”
Doug, ANY consequences that kill lots of people, preferably millions (except themselves, of course), would suit the greenies just fine.

Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
February 7, 2016 9:17 am

You’d think geo-engineering would be the perfect application of the precautionary principle. Don’t do it; it might work better than you think. (see Snowpiercer )

Patrick MJD
February 7, 2016 3:18 am

Crook? Is that her name or is that her game?

February 7, 2016 3:19 am

And thse morons are teaching our kids?

February 7, 2016 3:22 am

” … Crook and her co-authors maintain that their climate model shows the scheme could bring a 0.5-degree Celsius reduction in the Earth’s average surface temperature by 2069, helping to offset the 2-degree warming expected by then. …”
The first thing I noticed is that this is all yet another computer game toy computer model. These computer models are never verified, have no predictive skill, and almost always start with wrong-headed physics. Why should we spend even one dollar (now almost worthless) on such a scheme?
The second thing I noticed was that the 0.5 degree Celsius cooling is pure speculation. It could be an order of magnitude less than that.
The third thing I noticed is that these buffoons do not seem to realize that a 2 degree Celsius average warming would be a very, very good thing. Warm is good, and cold is very bad. (if they love cold let them move to Canada — I hear they have ample supplies of cold up there)
The forth thing I noticed was that these blockheads don’t seem to know that the “2 degree” warming is not going to happen. CO2 don’t do what they think it does and climate history tells us that we are at the end of the present tiny warming period and headed back into a colder period. Even if you don’t believe that, you have to admit that it is not settled science that we will see any 2 degrees warming. Heck, there has been none at all for nearly 20 years while CO2 went through the roof.
This “study” is one more data point supporting my contention that there is no real science in climate “science”.

Fly over Bob
Reply to  markstoval
February 7, 2016 6:34 am

I agree with you post. Your point “The second thing I noticed was that the 0.5 degree Celsius cooling is pure speculation. It could be an order of magnitude less than that.” It could easily be wrong in either direction.

Reply to  markstoval
February 7, 2016 8:34 am

And what if it works and really cools down the entire planet just as we are on the verge of another Ice Age????

February 7, 2016 3:23 am

It’s a joke right? A spoof. Nobody would seriously consider this sort of a project. The effect on cell membranes – –. They cannot be serious.

Reply to  Peter
February 7, 2016 5:12 am

My reactin too. Wtf?! Worse than cane toad idea. True greenies should be screaming from the roof tops with all sorts of potential biological consequences ie a real manmade catastrophe.

Reply to  macha
February 7, 2016 6:41 am

“True greenies should be screaming from the roof tops with all sorts of potential biological consequences ie a real manmade catastrophe.”
Yes, and the folks at the World Wildlife fund are similarly up in arms at the prospect of a gauntlet of bird-chopping wind turbines being erected across the planet!
Psyche! No they aint!
Haha, that was funny, Macha!

Reply to  Peter
February 7, 2016 5:32 pm

With Greens and trougher scientists every day is April 1st.

Patrick MJD
February 7, 2016 3:24 am

Those bubbles from propellers on boats and ships can cause a phenomenon called cavitation where the air in the bubble is so hot it, literally, wears “pits” on the outer edge of the blade. And they want to go putting this stuff in the water? Idiocy!

Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 7, 2016 4:53 am

Patrick….it’s the pressure that causes cavitation.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  gaelansclark
February 7, 2016 4:58 am

I did say can cause. Yes it is the pressure in high powered boats.

Reply to  gaelansclark
February 7, 2016 5:25 am

“Yes it is the pressure in high powered boats.”
How is the power of the boat relevant? High power boat do not automatically create high speed water and huge depressions. It depends on the size and speed of turbines.
The bubbles are created by the excess speed imposed on water, so that water fills the empty place fast enough, pressure drops and water boils. After the boiling (which isn’t a big issue) there the liquefaction: the gaz bubbles collapse causing high speed water walls and gigantic accelerations. They are essentially underwater destructive mines.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  gaelansclark
February 7, 2016 3:00 pm

Well if you have a power boat with 5000hp on tap, you will eventually see cavitation on the propelor.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  gaelansclark
February 7, 2016 3:07 pm

Rather than a wikipedia article, try this one;

Reply to  gaelansclark
February 7, 2016 3:14 pm

Cavitation is a submarines worst enemy.
Run silent, run deep

Patrick MJD
Reply to  gaelansclark
February 8, 2016 2:16 am

Ok I am at home now. Cavitation has many causes. Incorrect propeller for the job, unmatched propeller drive shaft engine combination, unmatched engine power. Too much power. Unmatched pitch and rake of the propeller (It’s why big ships these days have variable pitch props, esp the ships with huge thrust demand). Hull configuration. The list is almost endless. However, cavitation involves pressure shock waves striking the face of the blade. Those shock waves, and the bubbles they create, can sometimes create very high temperatures, literally, melting the metal. In my experience it sounded like “gravel” being sprayed on the underside of the hull.

Reply to  Patrick MJD
February 7, 2016 9:10 am

Patrick MJD,
Your comment above with regards to cavitation (you need to read up and understand that) has the credibility of that of the so-callled mainstream “climate science” as supported by the so-called “97% climate consensus”
The are too many engineers and those knowledgeable in physics using/reading WUWT to let your comment slide as being correct. You should do at least some due diligence before posting such nonsense. I hope that you haven’t poisoned the mind of anyone following the this thread with such an off the wall and incorrect claim related to simple physics.
Try this, it took me approximately 3 seconds to find it:

Patrick MJD
Reply to  eyesonu
February 7, 2016 3:08 pm

Rather than a wikipedia article, try this one;

Reply to  eyesonu
February 8, 2016 6:11 am

Thank you for the link. My point is that the shock wave of the collapsing bubble and the kinetic energy of the fluid filling the collapsed void is the determining factor with regards to cavitation, not the micro effects of any heat produced.
Rock such as granite and marble are cut using water jets which rely on the cavitation effects of the pressure jet. Check out Bit Tooth Energy blog by Dave Summers (?) for good descriptions of the process.

Patrick MJD
Reply to  eyesonu
February 9, 2016 2:33 am

Yes I know it’s the “shock wave”, but also hull design, propeller type, even drive shaft and gearbox as well as engine torque can induce that. The gas temperature and pressure in the bubble when it finally collapses can exceed the melting point of the material used in the propeller. Too many variables.

Reply to  eyesonu
February 10, 2016 5:48 pm

“The gas temperature and pressure in the bubble when it finally collapses can exceed the melting point of the material used in the propeller.”
In fact, the temperature can exceed that by some orders of magnitude.
“When bubbles in a liquid get compressed, the insides get hot – very hot,” said Ken Suslick of the University of Illinois at Urbana-Champaign. “The temperature we measured – about 20,000 degrees Kelvin [35,540 Fahrenheit] – is four times hotter than the surface of our Sun.”

February 7, 2016 3:40 am

“……additional ships specifically for the purpose of geoengineering could be used to produce a larger and more hemispherically symmetrical forcing.”
So, would these ships dedicated solely to ‘blowing bubbles’ be wind or solar powered? We certainly couldn’t allow any nasty petroleum based propulsion. Maybe Tesla could come up with an ‘electro-ship’ then we could induce the Chinese to build a bunch of artificial islands equipped with wind turbines and solar panels and used as recharging stations. In order to maximize the ship’s efficiency we could put propellers all along each side oriented perpendicular to the keel and thrusting away from the hull. We would need to be cautious and calculate the correct amount of bubbles to generate without affecting the vessel’s buoyancy.
Being green is as much fun as playing cowboys and Indians when you’re a child, lots and lots of stimulation for your imagination without the burden of reality.

Reply to  JustAnOldGuy
February 7, 2016 5:30 am

Is the soap bio-sourced and Gaia-compatible too?

Reply to  JustAnOldGuy
February 7, 2016 9:08 am

I would propose a boat hull be designed with 2 dissimilar metals running the length of the hull. Ion exchange between them thru the saline water would produce an electrical current would drive electrical motors to turn the propellers. Nonpolluting and it is FREE!!!
Address to send grant monies on request.

Reply to  barryjo
February 7, 2016 11:08 am

. . . see surfactant as a possible force multiplier. Navy lays down a long swath, runs a squadron of fast boats with large propellers down its length, maneuvers fleet behind bubbles.

Reply to  barryjo
February 7, 2016 2:07 pm

Free, Barryjo, until you need to replace the constantly eroding anode part of your setup.

February 7, 2016 3:45 am

[snip – Doug Cotton is banned for: 1. Spamming threads with his own pet theories. 2. Being wildly off-topic. 3. Multiple instances of sock-puppetry (like this one). 4. Not being smart enough to realize that when he achieves banned status, trying to get around it only makes him look desperate. 5. Being a pest not just here, but pretty much everywhere.
Doug, get it through your thick head – you are not welcome here <mod ]

John of Cloverdale WA Australia
February 7, 2016 3:47 am

When I read “stuff” like this, I always go back to the famous quote of Professor Albert Einstein:
“Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I’m not sure about the former”.
I think Professor Einstein would be appalled that climate “scientists” are considered scientists.

Leo Smith
Reply to  John of Cloverdale WA Australia
February 7, 2016 6:58 am

I think Professor Einstein would be appalled that climate “scientists” are considered scientists. Or social “scientists”. And wuite a few other *&^%$£s who like to all themselves “scientists”

Fly over Bob
Reply to  John of Cloverdale WA Australia
February 7, 2016 7:07 am

I think he would say, “Hypothesis confirmed.”

John of Cloverdale WA Australia
Reply to  Fly over Bob
February 7, 2016 7:11 pm

What has this got to do with the subject, “Pouring Millions of Tons of Bubble Mix into the Sea”.
I was not talking about a failed hypothesis. Hopefully yours is a sarcastic comment. If you are serious, than you are 5 tinnies short of a six-pack.
As for the atmospheric CO2 hypothesis of Global warming: Why do CO2 plots lag the Temperature plots by 800 to 1000 years? And why do the official model plots not fit the observed data? I see it as a major hypothesis fail.
I leave you with another famous quote:
“One of the most insidious and nefarious properties of scientific models is their tendency to take over, and sometimes supplant, reality”.
— Erwin Chargaf

February 7, 2016 4:00 am

The stupid, it burns.

February 7, 2016 4:16 am

haven’t we heard this before… I’m sure some other nut job suggested this some time ago… and wasn’t he finally banned from here for his trolling when everyone flamed him??

February 7, 2016 4:22 am

If a democrat wins this fall, the US Navy will be forced to adopt this for its submarine fleet. Because CAGW trumps ability to remain undetected

Reply to  Gregv61
February 7, 2016 8:38 am

A teacher asked her 6th grade class how many of them were Obama fans.
Not really knowing what an Obama fan is, but wanting to be liked by the teacher, all the kids raised their hands except for Little Johnny.
The teacher asked Little Johnny why he has decided to be different… again.
Little Johnny said, “Because I’m not an Obama fan.”
The teacher asked, “Why aren’t you a fan of Obama?” Johnny said, “Because I’m a Republican.”
The teacher asked him why he’s a Republican. Little Johnny answered, “Well, my Mom’s a Republican and my Dad’s a Republican, so I’m a Republican.”
Annoyed by this answer, the teacher asked, “If your mom were a moron and your dad were an idiot, what would that make you?”
With a big smile, Little Johnny replied, “That would make me an Obama fan..”

Reply to  john
February 7, 2016 2:10 pm

Borrowed. Thanks John.

February 7, 2016 4:30 am

it just keeps getting weirder and weirder.

February 7, 2016 4:45 am

gee, lets see multi millions of people using detergents to do clothes washing daily/weekly
avg 3 or 5 loads dep on home size?and brainwashing levels of “cleanliness”
then daily showers with shampoo soaps etc all going down drains to water treatment
home etc other cleaners,
treatment? plants that do NOT remove those chem or the pharma drugs street runoff chem and poisons etc used on paths gardens etc
than all the sewer water
how much more crud do we need to throw in the oceans I wonder?

Reply to  ozspeaksup
February 7, 2016 6:49 am

“(H)ow much more crud do we need to throw in the oceans I wonder?”
According to this newfangled “science”…plenty!

February 7, 2016 4:46 am

I can just see me hove to heading into a force 10 and not being able to see out of the wheelhouse windows because they are covered in bubbles made as each wave brakes over the bow.
I would guess the radar scanner might not like it much either.
As for the bubbles going through the engine cooling water pump ….. .
As my English teacher used to say “Clotted tosh and curdled balderdash”.

Leo Smith
Reply to  Oldseadog
February 7, 2016 7:00 am

….as each wave brakes …..crumbs! – do they come with disc brakes or drum brakes these days>?
As my English teacher used to say “Clotted tosh and curdled balderdash”.

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 7, 2016 7:16 am

I yews two due mie ohn auto repairs, butt eye am afraid ay will brake my breaks if eye tried that won!

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 7, 2016 12:07 pm

Yep, ya got me. I cringe.
Been a hard weekend.

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 7, 2016 12:30 pm

Do not sweat it…i have made far worse errors and do so with frequency.
In a pinch, blame autocorrect or faulty text to speech.
No coffee yet is a goodun too.

Reply to  Leo Smith
February 7, 2016 12:54 pm

Sometimes I have written whole sentences and even paragraphs that turned out to be mistakes.

DC Cowboy
February 7, 2016 4:47 am

So we’re going to fight Climate Change by turning the world’s oceans into a giant bubble bath?

Reply to  DC Cowboy
February 7, 2016 5:20 am

Where’s my rubber ducky! 🙂

Leo Smith
Reply to  SMC
February 7, 2016 7:01 am

You really dont want me to answer that, do you?

February 7, 2016 4:55 am

Geoengineering: billions will die.

February 7, 2016 4:56 am

..and to use ships!!! The most polluting type of transport there is!!!

Reply to  Mycroft
February 7, 2016 1:21 pm

Surely you mean – ships – the most efficient form of transport?

February 7, 2016 4:56 am

Hubble bubble,
Toil and trouble.

February 7, 2016 5:03 am

Tamen sui supplant teneo.

richard verney
February 7, 2016 5:31 am

What surface area of the oceans is used by ships? Could this really make any difference? I would like to know the sensitivity of the models if the model run projects the result claimed.
Ships proceed in shipping lanes, so they use a very narrow tract of the ocean. Of course, at times they depart from the usual route because of bad weather, or are pushed a little off course by currents, but for the main part very little area of the vast tracts of the oceans is used by commercial shipping. For example, see the incomplete map which gives a good insight into how little area is actualy plyed on trade routes.
comment image

Reply to  richard verney
February 7, 2016 8:54 pm

If all those shipping lanes were filled with bubbles, how do the ships float?

February 7, 2016 5:32 am

Some tossers were dumping iron into the Pacific back in 2009, a feeble but no doubt locally damaging geo-engineering stunt. Then El Nino decided to help his sister by picking up silt from Australia’s interior (there’d been some earlier flooding out Lake Eyre way) and sending millions of tons of IRON-rich dust into the Pacific on the wings of one of those powerful spring westerlies you often get in El Nino conditions.
I’m sure the tossers didn’t even notice. Maybe they were climate experts and good at not noticing.

Reply to  mosomoso
February 7, 2016 6:55 am

Iron fertilization of oceanic deserts may be a good idea for inducing a more life friendly habitat. Needs more study though.
But it is clear that in places where cold and nutrient rich water upwells from depth, marine life explodes in vast abundance.
If there are places where lack of iron is creating large areas that are virtually devoid of life, how is this different, in theory anyway, than applying fertilizer and trace mineral suppliments to nutrient poor lands?

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 7:19 am

Just sayin’.

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 7:21 am

Iron fertilisation of oceans is probably important for habitat, climate cycles etc. I think that’s why melting glaciers and Australian deserts do that red dust thing they do. Only they work for free, at the right time, and dump a million times more iron than a boat can, with a much better scatter.
Similar dust events occurred in the El Ninos of the early 1940s and 1983. Of course, publications like the Guardian were happy to describe this 2009 event as a disaster and hint that dust from siltation carried by strong westerlies must be something sinister. Oddly, the climatariat probably think iron seeding done the hard, expensive and ineffective way is a great idea.
If someone wants to try careful artificial seeding for some commercial purpose, I guess that’s fine, if they mind what they are doing.
If they’re hoping to do some climate-dialling by polluting the oceans, I’d rather sink their boat.

Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 10:20 am

I could support experimenting with some sort of machine to create upwelling from the deep by utilizing the temperature difference to self power it.

Reply to  mosomoso
February 7, 2016 7:59 am

… a feeble but no doubt locally damaging geo-engineering stunt.

The jury is out. link Nobody has found much harm from dumping iron in the ocean.
A few years ago

… a chartered fishing boat strewed 100 tonnes of iron sulphate into the ocean off western Canada last July, the goal was to supercharge the marine ecosystem. The iron was meant to fertilize plankton, boost salmon populations and sequester carbon. Whether the ocean responded as hoped is not clear, but the project has touched off an explosion on land, angering scientists, embarrassing a village of indigenous people and enraging opponents of geoengineering. link

The local population had noticed that

A bumper run of sockeye salmon in 2010 came two years after a volcanic eruption in Alaska sent a layer of iron-rich ash over the ocean, fertilizing a plankton bloom.

The eco-loons were up in arms because some folks did what nature does naturally.
Any attempt at anything that looks like geo-engineering will provoke a reaction that is way overboard.

Reply to  commieBob
February 7, 2016 8:28 am

Well, if they’re doing it for a feed of salmon and there’s no apparent harm, good luck to ’em. On top of all that good desert dust you get maybe a million tonnes of iron (not too digested at the start and making a good spread) from glacial melt annually, so I guess a few tonnes more is no big deal. I guess if they stuff up the recipe over a small area it won’t matter.
But if it’s for climate-dialling or carbon-gobbling, no way. Same goes for the fizzy ocean and sudsy ocean ideas – and the rest of the submarine white elephants. These warmies seem to go by the philosophy that you can’t burn an omelet without breaking all the eggs.

richard verney
February 7, 2016 5:34 am

Further to my post above.
To see the map, click on the x in the square.
It should then open up and one can quickly see that only fractions of a percent of the ocean are sailed by commercial ships.

Joe Crawford
Reply to  richard verney
February 7, 2016 8:43 am

There use to be a single sideband radio station (‘Herb’) in Bermuda, and later moved to Canada, that had the most accurate weather available for the North Atlantic and Caribbean. The National Weather Services (NWSs) only used information reported by commercial ship traffic that followed the shipping lanes so, as your map shows, their coverage was very limited. ‘Herb’ was in contact with practically all of the private boaters and sailors in those waters. Since they sailed outside the normal shipping lanes his information covered considerably more of the North Atlantic and Caribbean than did that of the NWSs. He could usually tell you within a half hour or so when you were going to hit fair/foul winds and fronts, or he could successfully steer you safely around or through gales and storms.

michael hart
February 7, 2016 5:39 am

“The day of the Suds”, was probably the best ever episode of Danger-Mouse.

Reply to  michael hart
February 7, 2016 6:56 am


michael hart
Reply to  Menicholas
February 7, 2016 7:31 am

Good link available here;
Puts global warming in its proper perspective.

Gregg C.
Reply to  michael hart
February 12, 2016 6:30 am

So this finally would be c.h.e.m.t.r.a.i.l.s. in reality.

Bruce Cobb
February 7, 2016 5:45 am

It’s idiocy all the way down.

Alan Robertson
Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 7, 2016 7:14 am

“†This article has been accepted for publication and undergone full peer review…”

guido LaMoto
February 7, 2016 5:50 am

Pour surfactant into the Ocean? Didn’t we used to do that (as washing detergent in our sewage) a lot, then the EPA said we couldn’t do it anymore cuz it was ruining the environment?

February 7, 2016 6:02 am

Marine chemtrails. Nice.

February 7, 2016 6:03 am

So, they want to POLLUTE the ocean with foreign materials and the goal is to make the planet very cold right on the verge of the next Ice Age which is about due, now.

Reply to  emsnews
February 7, 2016 6:57 am

*voice of Joe Piscapo imitating Frank Sinatra*
Hey, this is science baby!

February 7, 2016 6:08 am

Nice Photograph…!!!

February 7, 2016 6:17 am

Another dollop of lunacy from the knuckle-dragging mouth-breathers.

February 7, 2016 6:18 am

I bet the EPA will be in charge of this one code name Obama Toxic Seafood.
Speaking of O’failure…
Obama proposes to double U.S. clean energy funding
U.S. President Barack Obama said Saturday he will ask Congress to double the country’s funding for clean energy research and development by 2020, as part of his efforts to combat climate change.
“Rather than subsidize the past, we should invest in the future,” Obama said during his weekly radio address, hoping that the Republicans in Congress who “are still considering their position on climate change” could support his budget for the fiscal year 2017, which will start from October this year.
The budget for the fiscal year 2017 will be released Tuesday.
Obama added that the money “will include new investments to help the private sector create more jobs faster, lower the cost of clean energy faster, and help clean, renewable power outcompete dirty fuels in every state.”
U.S. federal investment in clean energy research and development would rise from 6.4 billion U.S. dollars in the fiscal year 2016 to 12.8 billion dollars in the fiscal year 2021, under Obama’s new proposal, according to a statement from the White House.
That would mean about a 15 percent increase in clean energy research and development funding in each of the forthcoming five years of the pledge.
If approved, the fiscal year 2017 budget would provide 7.7 billion dollars in discretionary funding for clean energy research and development across 12 agencies, which is about 20 percent above the level for the fiscal year 2016.
Earlier this week, Obama said he would also propose in Tuesday’s budget to seek a fee of 10 dollars per barrel on oil to be paid by oil companies to help create a cleaner, more sustainable transportation system.

Reply to  john
February 7, 2016 2:29 pm

Yes our courageous leader and defender of the poor and downtrodden seeks to impose a $80 Billion per year, highly regressive tax on basically everything.
Has there ever been a tax which was not immediately passed on to the end consumer, one might ask?
No, never, one might well answer!

February 7, 2016 6:36 am

I seem to remember a Popular Science? article a few years back where the thing under discussion was using air forced under the hull of a ship, or sub, to make them move more easily through the water. At the time it was only the speed they were discussing, but if the principal worked it would seem to me it would also save fuel.
here we go. Supercavitation
This process would also likely increase the bubbles in the wake of a ship, without the need for any chemicals.

Reply to  peter
February 7, 2016 11:27 am

Since the ships are kept afloat by displacement, air underneath will cause them to ride deeper in the water.

Reply to  Gamecock
February 7, 2016 11:44 am

. . . or sink if they sail over a large pocket of natural gas leaks on the ocean floor.

Barbara Skolaut
February 7, 2016 6:45 am

J.C. on a crutch!
These worthless clowns* are serious, aren’t they? 🙁
*apologies to regular clowns everywhere.

Reply to  Barbara Skolaut
February 7, 2016 7:00 am

As senior VP of my local chapter of Worthless Clowns Anonymous, I must take strong exception to this unwarranted smear of my beleaguered brethren!

Jerry Henson
February 7, 2016 6:47 am

Artificially increase the cost of energy, slow capitalism, all the regulation is not destroying
capitalism fast enough.

Leon Brozyna
February 7, 2016 6:51 am

We had to save the planet by killing it.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
February 7, 2016 7:01 am

Now you are getting the right idea.

Reply to  Leon Brozyna
February 7, 2016 7:23 am

Please disregard my comment just above. Here is what i should have said:
Now you are getting the right idea about their wrong ideas.
There, fuxxed it for me.

February 7, 2016 7:23 am

This would kill 90% of sea life within 5 years and increase the effects of CO2/salt acidity nearly tenfold.

Reply to  prjindigo
February 7, 2016 12:34 pm

*channels Joe Pesci in My Cousin Vinny*
Are you sure about that 90%?

FJ Shepherd
February 7, 2016 7:36 am

I wonder how much of the grant money received by the authors to study this nonsense was used as a subvention to the publisher? How else could this crap have been published?

The Original Mike M
February 7, 2016 7:43 am

Put the soap bubble stuff into the sulfuric acid sprayer.

February 7, 2016 8:17 am

Why anyone would want to come up with any scheme to decrease global warming natural or otherwise since all agree no matter what humans do we are heading ultimately for a return of full ice age conditions makes me wonder about the sanity of some people.
Warming is good! (especially since we are well within historical natural variation anyway – would if we could delay the full on ice age)

February 7, 2016 8:17 am

Don’t you just love girlie science. I imagine as we sit here reading this, part-written “scientific” papers are being amended to include a reference to this rubbish. The more citations it gets the more credible it will become. Next appearance? In the next Report by Policy Makers from the IPCC.

Gary Pearse
February 7, 2016 8:31 am

That should be enough to close the show! This is the result of hundreds of thousands of climate scientists and students, in an age of only marginal scientific discoveries, spending their waking hours desperately trying to think up something to give themselves relevance. Remember the thousands of things that global warming causes (a web site somewhere keeps tabs). This and the speed with which over 60 reasons were given for the dreaded PAUSE that had caused an epidemic of climatist clinical depression and was the most threatening falsification of the CO2 control knob (or any control knob for that matter, unless the pause was on cruise control!) is prima facie evidence that much of the garbage out comes from this homogeneous swarm of clisci humanity.
As a politically incorrect observation, I note that there are more and more women publishing, pushing out this embarrassing stuff. I grew up in a very liberated family with a strong mother and older sister (who was a true genius) who were fully advanced in their liberation before the movement was invented. But, right now, I am worried about a female becoming president of the US. I’m sorry, but, at this level, I think Hillary, whom I believe to have more than a few self-doubts and scores to settle from her experiences, will let thoughtful deliberation be submerged in the urge to “Show you just what I can do!”. We aren’t talking Golda Meir, Margaret Thatcher, Aung San Suu Kyi, Indira Ghandi, Janice Moore, Jo Nova or Donna LaFramboise! We are talking Isabel Peron, Angela Merkl, Julia Gillard, Kim Campbell…. Please no more nurturing and nannying.

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 7, 2016 8:41 am

Right about now, Janice Moore is trying to figure out how to send you a big wet sloppy kiss !! LOL

Reply to  Gary Pearse
February 7, 2016 12:37 pm

I am strongly considering on-my-knees-before-bedtime praying to help avert a Hillary win.

February 7, 2016 8:37 am

Crook and her co-authors maintain that their climate model shows the scheme could bring a 0.5-degree Celsius reduction in the Earth’s average surface temperature by 2069

It is the 2069 that somehow raised suspicion. Had it been 2070…

Reply to  TomRude
February 7, 2016 12:38 pm

2070 is 54 years man!
It only takes 53 years dude!
Dang…some peoples!

Reply to  TomRude
February 7, 2016 12:39 pm

Did i ever tell you about my 7 minute abs video?

February 7, 2016 9:04 am

I counted six ‘coulds’ in the abstract. That’s a little more than we usually see, so this paper is above average for a ‘climate change’ paper.

Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 9:06 am

Oh that’s a good idea. Reduce the ocean’s ability to serve as our main energy storing/releasing source by reducing its ability to absorb SW infrared deep into the ocean where it builds, waiting to warm us when released to the surface.
What they and others, who want to reflect more SW in order to reduce anthropogenic radiated LW warming, don’t realize is that they will actually serve to bring about killing cold conditions.
Here is the bottom line of adaptation. We have to store up global provisions for periods of cold when the oceans act as net heat absorbers, and then plant, harvest, and preserve like crazy when the oceans act as net heat releasers. Look it up. It’s in the Bible. And while we are on that subject, what is with people when they build a house on the fricken sandbar cliff next to the ocean?????? That’s in the Bible too. You may not like what it says in other books and chapters, but by God it got it right regarding climate change and extreme weather.

Bruce Cobb
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 9:39 am

Trump would be a travesty, Cruz is kinda crazy, Christie’s creepy and Bush is just too far behind, so Rubio remains.

Reply to  Bruce Cobb
February 7, 2016 10:25 am

Rubio may have been dinged last night. Have to wait and see.
But in the meantime:
Grumpy and me in 2016!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 12:35 pm

The bite heard round the world from Christy is easily dispensed with. The issue of being a senator versus a governor candidate will bite governor candidates in the behind if they use this kind of jab. There is a statistical tie between presidents who have been governors versus senators. And there are plenty of examples of good and bad presidents who come from each background experience. It is a silly talking point easily brushed aside.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 12:41 pm

Wooo Hooo.
You is my kinda girl Pamela!
Doing anything next Saturday night?

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 1:22 pm

LOL! Admiring my engagement ring. I am spoken for to a delightful man.

Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 7, 2016 2:40 pm

Aw shucks.
But I think I knew that.
I was hoping we could go vote together, early and often in South Carolina.
I shall vote with you in spirit instead!
Well, I am off to throw some rotten tomatoes at Chris Christie.

George Tetley
Reply to  Pamela Gray
February 8, 2016 2:27 am

A MAN with a history of making the right decision, who has so much wealth he is beyond corruption, that calls a spade a spade and if unsure asks for advice ?

David S
February 7, 2016 9:07 am

Wouldn’t this also reduce evaporation from the surface of the sea? Evaporation takes about 1000 btu of energy per pound of water evaporated. That cools the sea surface. The water evaporated is less dense than air and tends to rise in the atmosphere. It rises until it reaches cooler air where it condenses and releases the heat above the greenhouse blanket where the heat can be more readily radiated into space. So by reducing evaporation this plan would create a warming effect. Bad idea!

Pamela Gray
Reply to  David S
February 7, 2016 11:21 am

The stored heat would travel on ocean currents to where it is best evaporated away, at higher latitudes. So unless they soap up the Antarctic and Arctic ocean as well as soaping up lower latitudes, the net affect would still be to leave the planet without a recharged ocean.

February 7, 2016 9:17 am

I’d be interested, too, in the effect of a persistent surface layer of bubbles on gas exchange between the atmosphere and the sea water: might this interfere with O2 getting into the water and thereby inhibiting or suffocating sea life?
Eric Hines

Reply to  E Hines
February 7, 2016 12:43 pm

I am pretty sure the soap would be sufficiently bad, all by it’s lonesome, to be a major problem.

February 7, 2016 9:38 am

How about large quantities of lemon-lime Kool-Aid?
Add CO2 injection and we could make Salty Seven-Up!
C’mon good people! Let’s get on-board this nifty new green idea!
It’s like, totally, y’know, so… environmental!
After all, it’s no more loony than CO2 abatement and sequestration schemes.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2016 12:44 pm

This is actually the hardest I have laughed in a long time, and I laugh a lot!
Thanks Allen.

Reply to  Allan MacRae
February 7, 2016 2:43 pm

The biggest advantage of your lemon-lime Kool-Aid plan is that a little goes a long way.
But, speaking of Kool-Aid…I think the authors may have already drank it all.

Mike the Morlock
February 7, 2016 9:42 am

Lets see, Dr. Julia A. Crook Has a fellowship with the “American Geophysical union” at Leeds college. I wonder who is funding the A.G.U. fellowship? Is Dr. Crook wasting just American or just British taxpayer monies? Or both?
Maybe its time that All of these exercises in stupidity are documented compiled and forwarded to the relevant congressional committee. So that next time President Obama wants to increase funds for fighting “climate change” congress can ask him first to explain stupidity like this.
One would expect something like this to come from the “Onion” . Journalist at the Huntington Post must be taking stupid pills every morning. Brilliant turn the worlds oceans into a vast “Bubble Bath”×360.png

Gunga Din
Reply to  Mike the Morlock
February 7, 2016 1:51 pm

Yet another solution to a non-problem from the Mr. Bubble Brains.
Of course, the tax payers will need to pay them for coming up with this “solution”.

February 7, 2016 9:52 am

This may well be an ideal area of research and speculative analysis and modelling etc for the latest crop of rent seeking hangers on. It fulfills all the essential requirements:
1: It’s attention grabbing.
2. It will most likely never be tested in practice at any significant scale. (and thank crap for that)
3. Even if put in to practice it would be unlikely to solve the problem because:
3a. The problem is the product of delusional perceptions and voodoo science.
3b. Even if the problem was real, solving it would be a disaster for the rent seekers. Therefore solving the (imaginary) problem will not be permitted.
Hence, we can expect to hear a great deal more twaddle about this silly load of tosh for the next few decades. Touted, no doubt, as the next great example of “scientists” offering up their imaginative brilliance in league with Big Government/Big Corporations and now the Big Inter-Governmental Global Regime.
Who as we all know, plan to manufacture a perfect utopia of stable climate, zero poverty, zero war, and a single global race of gullible chocolate coloured clones.
Who is funding this surfactant plan by the way? Reckitt Benckiser or Smithkline Beecham? 🙂

February 7, 2016 10:07 am

The Alarmists are suggesting we use the slightly modified classic Mohammed Ali maneuver:
the “soap a dope”!

February 7, 2016 10:09 am

The best idea I have seen since diverting Amu Darya and Sur Darya for irrigation purposes. That is what central planning will do for you.

Reply to  lenbilen
February 7, 2016 12:37 pm

Ah yes! The Aral Sea Debacle!
I had a large successful project near Kyzl-Orda on the Syr Darya River in Kazakstan. Not only was the Aral Sea a disaster, the poor irrigation practices salted the fields far upstream along the Syr Darya.
Lovely place, the Central Asian Desert. We stocked antibiotics because there reportedly was bubonic plague in the area. Space junk littered the landscape, because we were down-range from Baikonur, the FSU ‘s launch site.
A few thoughts follow, on the enviro radicals who brought you global warming hysteria, and some of the past accomplishments of their heroes:
We should just listen to what the enviro radicals are actually SAYING and DOING.
Maybe they know their predictions of catastrophic humanmade global warming are false, but it suits their purpose to use global warming hysteria as a smokescreen to mask their true intentions.
The radical warmists have done everything in their power to starve the world of fossil fuel energy that is required for continued global prosperity.
They have squandered a trillion dollars [now many trillions] of scarce global resources on catastrophic humanmade global warming (CAGW) nonsense.
Investing these squandered resources in clean drinking water and sanitation alone would have saved the ~50 million kids who died from drinking contaminated water in the past 25+ years of CAGW hysteria.
Intelligent use of these scarce global resources could have easily saved as many people as were killed in the atrocities of Hitler, Stalin, or Mao.
50 million people died in Hitler’s WW2. Josef Stalin killed another 50 million of his own people in internal purges. Leftist hero Mao gets the prize, killing as many as 80 million Chinese during his Great Leap Backward.
The radical environmental movement has done equally well, rivaling Mao for fatalities caused by the banning of DDT and the misallocation of scarce global resources on the fraud of catastrophic humanmade global warming.
Since many of these enviro radicals are latter-day Malthusians, Club of Rome types, etc., it is reasonable to assume that THIS WAS THEIR INTENTION.
Is this proposal too extreme? Well, NO it is not: In addition to what the radical enviros DO, let’s EXAMINE what they SAY:
”My three goals would be to reduce human population to about 100 million worldwide, destroy the industrial infrastructure and see wilderness, with its full complement of species, returning throughout the world.”
David Foreman,
co-founder of Earth First!
”A total population of 250-300 million people, a 95% decline from present levels, would be ideal.”
Ted Turner,
Founder of CNN and major UN donor
”The prospect of cheap fusion energy is the worst thing that could happen to the planet.”
Jeremy Rifkin,
Greenhouse Crisis Foundation
”Giving society cheap, abundant energy would be the equivalent of giving an idiot child a machine gun.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”
”The big threat to the planet is people: there are too many, doing too well economically and burning too much oil.”
Sir James Lovelock,
BBC Interview
”We need to get some broad based support, to capture the public’s imagination… So we have to offer up scary scenarios, make simplified, dramatic statements and make little mention of any doubts… Each of us has to decide what the right balance is between being effective and being honest.”
Stephen Schneider,
Stanford Professor of Climatology,
Lead author of many IPCC reports
”Unless we announce disasters no one will listen.”
Sir John Houghton,
First chairman of the IPCC
”It doesn’t matter what is true, it only matters what people believe is true.”
Paul Watson,
Co-founder of Greenpeace
”Childbearing should be a punishable crime against society, unless the parents hold a government license. All potential parents should be required to use contraceptive chemicals, the government issuing antidotes to citizens chosen for childbearing.”
David Brower,
First Executive Director of the Sierra Club
”We’ve got to ride this global warming issue. Even if the theory of global warming is wrong, we will be doing the right thing in terms of economic and environmental policy.”
Timothy Wirth,
President of the UN Foundation
”No matter if the science of global warming is all phony… climate change provides the greatest opportunity to bring about justice and equality in the world.”
Christine Stewart,
former Canadian Minister of the Environment
”The only way to get our society to truly change is to frighten people with the possibility of a catastrophe.”
Emeritus Professor Daniel Botkin
”Isn’t the only hope for the planet that the industrialized civilizations collapse? Isn’t it our responsibility to bring that about?”
Maurice Strong,
Founder of the UN Environmental Program
”A massive campaign must be launched to de-develop the United States. De-Development means bringing our economic system into line with the realities of ecology and the world resource situation.”
Paul Ehrlich,
Professor of Population Studies,
Author: “Population Bomb”, “Ecoscience”

If I were reincarnated I would wish to return to earth as a killer virus to lower human population levels.”
Prince Phillip, Duke of Edinburgh,
husband of Queen Elizabeth II,
Patron of the Patron of the World Wildlife Foundation
”The only hope for the world is to make sure there is not another United States. We can’t let other countries have the same number of cars, the amount of industrialization we have in the US. We have to stop these third World countries right where they are.”
Michael Oppenheimer
Environmental Defense Fund
”Global Sustainability requires the deliberate quest of poverty, reduced resource consumption and set levels of mortality control.”
Professor Maurice King
”Current lifestyles and consumption patterns of the affluent middle class – involving high meat intake, use of fossil fuels, appliances, air-conditioning, and suburban housing – are not sustainable.”
Maurice Strong,
Rio Earth Summit
”Complex technology of any sort is an assault on the human dignity. It would be little short of disastrous for us to discover a source of clean, cheap, abundant energy, because of what we might do with it.”
Amory Lovins,
Rocky Mountain Institute
”I suspect that eradicating small pox was wrong. it played an important part in balancing ecosystems.”
John Davis,
Editor of Earth First! Journal
Excerpts above from

Michael D Smith
February 7, 2016 10:10 am

Incredibly dumb idea that will have no effect at all. It just highlights how little understanding so called “researchers” have of the climate system.
Albedo is controlled by convection, and is a result of / reaction to the earth’s temperature and evaporation. The earth’s albedo of 0.306 indicates a classical GHE of 33.7°C, but this includes the effect of clouds, which result to cool the earth. If you took the clouds away (reducing albedo to about 0.15), the GHE would only be 20.5°C (and temperatures would climb). In other words, the clouds are already reducing temperature by about 13.2°C by their active temperature control (increased but well regulated albedo), while the total of water vapor, CO2 and others accounts for about 20.5°C, the vast majority of which is water vapor. If you change the albedo of the ocean slightly, more energy is reflected to space, which will cool the earth, which will simply open the shutters a little more to compensate and warm it back up again. Fewer clouds will result and less precipitation will occur until the evaporation is increased again by surface temperature. You can’t change earth’s albedo significantly, it is a property of the water that evaporates and transpires here, at least in its current stable state. Darken the planet and it will quickly lighten itself with more clouds and precipitation due to the extra heat gained. Lighten the planet, and it will cool quickly, resulting in fewer clouds, thus making itself darker until the extra heat gain once again restores the cloud level. Albedo is very nearly immovable given the super fast reaction time of clouds (minutes to hours).

February 7, 2016 10:14 am

This is a completely idiotic proposal, Brought to you by the usual suspects.
The morons who call themselves climate scientists.

February 7, 2016 10:18 am

The worse part about this loony idea is that it received press.

February 7, 2016 10:49 am

Eeeeeh gads what a colossally stupid idea.

Walt D.
February 7, 2016 11:02 am

How much will this cost and who is going to pay for it. Who will get rich off of it – the usual cronies and big oil who supply the raw materials to make the surfactants.
This will be really helpful if we are in fact heading into another mini ice age.

February 7, 2016 11:39 am

In my opinion, it’s a bad idea. Almost all human interference with the oceans (I’m speaking about the unwittingly ones) ended badly and with huge repercussions over the entire planet. Here’s another example: human activity on the oceans during the World War II clearly influenced the climate –

February 7, 2016 11:53 am

However one place a bit of surfactant on board will help, is stick it in the fuel oil with a bit of water and reduce the fuel consumption a tad

February 7, 2016 12:09 pm

Back in the day not long ago throwing stuff like this into the ocean, or even a little lake, would be considered as pollution. And another side-effect would occur when ocean-going ships suck up the junk into their water inlets to cool the engines! “BANG” oops another one down to visit Davy Jones! And then there is the consequence of the junk on the thermometers in the inlets used to record “ocean water temperature”. Thus another problem for the NOAA data-engineers to rig a new set of adjustments to the keep ocean temperature rising in accordance with Scripture.
Ha ha

John in Oz
February 7, 2016 12:42 pm

They say “a 0.5 °C reduction of global mean surface temperature” as if this is a good thing. Nature will create disasters (for us, not necessarily the planet) at all temperatures.
Using NASA’s graph of surface temperature anomalies (, a 0.5C reduction in current surface temperature takes us back to the 1950’s.
The perfect climate back then produced:
1950: “Climate Change – World Is Warming”
1950: No Snow In New England Region Devastates Winter Recreation Business
1950: European Countries Finance Antarctica Research To Investigate Warming Earth
1950: Strange Atmospheric Events Affect World’s Weather
1950: Hurricane Sweeps Along New England Coast – 60 MPH Winds, Mountainous Waves
1950: 1,000 Villages In Pakistan Destroyed By Flooding
1950: Cold Wind And Dust Storm Sweep Over Bombay, India
1950: Record Rain In Queensland, Australia
1950: Minnesota, N. Dakota & Nebraska Regions Swamped By Flooding
1950: Wild Bushfires Scorch 60 Square Miles of Colorado
1950: Pine Beetle Population In Idaho Forests “Building Up To Alarming Proportions”
1950: Floods In Brazil & Ecuador Take 150 Lives – Train Plunges Off Washed-Out Bridge
1950: Oregon Heat Wave Breaks Temperature Records
1950: Oklahoma’s Dust Bowl Region Struck By New Drought
1950: Nine Die In Midwest Dust Storm
1950: 3rd Dust Storm This Year Strikes Wheat States
1950: Scientists Say Earth Warming And Glaciers Melting
1950: Great Appalachian Storm Wreaks Havoc On 22 States – Massive Rainfalls and Blizzard
1950: Eroding Beaches In Australia Due to Rapid Sea Level Rises
1950: Rapid Warming In Greenland – Sea Temperatures Up By Several Degrees
1950: Six Nations Send Scientists To Arctic To Investigate Glacier & Ice Cap Melting
1950: Scientist Says Sidney, Australia Climate Getting Hotter
1950: “The World’s Weather Is Just Crazy”
1951: “Glaciers, Icebergs melt as world gets warmer”
1951: Slow Moving Blizzard Leaves Iowa City With 27″ of Snow
1951: MIT Scientist Correctly Predicts Global Cooling – Based On Sunspots, Not CO2
1951: Bone-Dry Texas Swelters From Heat Wave
1951: Bakersfield, California Life Halted Due To Blinding Dust Storm
1951: Warming of Greenland & Melting Exposes Medieval Farm-Homes Buried Under Ice For Centuries
1951: Hurricane Level Winds Lash America’s Midwest – Flash Floods, Snow & Heat Wave!
1951: Kansas River Flood Displaces Over 500,000
1951: Mississippi River Reaches Highest Level For 107 Years
1951: Floods, Drought Ravage China Over 3-Month Period
1951: Fierce Hailstorm & 40 MPH Winds Wreck Apple Crop In Australia
1951: Kansas City Crippled by Missouri River Flood Waters, St. Louis Next
1951: Mount Lamington Eruption Causes 3,000 Deaths
1951: Hurricane Charlie Blasts Jamaica – 150 Dead
1951: Philippines Loses 541 Lives To Typhoon
1951: 100 Degree Heat Wave Lasts For 7 Weeks In Texas
1951: Eastern Airlines Pilot Runs Into A Sahara Dust Storm 700 Miles From U.S. Coast
1952: March 23 – Hundreds Killed In Southern Tornadoes – Flooding On Lake Erie – Blizzard On the Plains
1952: “Worst Ever Seen” Dust Storm Covers The Columbia Basin In State of Washington
1952: Previously Submerged Town Behind Grand Coulee Dam Has Dust Storm
1952: Exodous Begins – Imminent Starvation Due To Drought Facing Mexican Families
1952: Missouri River “Savagery” Causes Massive Flooding In Iowa
1952: Mississippi River Floods – Record Crests In Minnesota & Wisconsin
1952: Norweigan & Alaskan Glaciers Shrunk 50% Since 1902 Says Scientist
1952: Arctic Scientist Says Polar Ice Cap Melting Threatens Australia’s Seaports
1952: Many Species Migrate Northward In Northern Hemisphere Due To Warming World
1952: July Extended Heat Wave – 104 Degrees In Norway – 106 In Italy
1952: March Earthquake, Tsunami And Snowstorm Hits Japan
1952: Another Severe Drought In Australia
1952: North East India Floods Submerge 391 Villages
1952: Alaska really is getting warmer
1952: Yugoslavia’s Agriculture Suffers From Repeated Drought
1952: Scientist Says Both Polar Ice Caps Melting At Alarming Rate
1952: Billowing Dust Storm Shrieks Across Southwest U.S.
1952: Massive Arctic Warming, Glaciers Lose Half Their Size, Seas Are Ice Free Most Of The Time
1952: Record Rain Pummels Texas After Record Drought
1953: Hurricane’s Sea Floods Kill More Than 900 In Europe – Worst Since 15th Century
1953: UK Floods Kill 300, Farmlands Made Infertile From Salt Water
1953: Consensus Among Meterologists: The World Is Warming
1953: Scientists Say Antarctica Ice Melting Rapidly
1953: Australia’s ‘Atomic” Port Struck by Hurricane – Every Single Builing Damaged
1953: UK Tornado – 89 Deaths
1953: China’s Authorities Report Severe Drought Impact
1953: Wisconsin Heat Wave Pales To Heat Wave They Had In 1936
1953: Choking Dust Storm Darkens Most of Texas
1953: Texas Drought Dust Falls In NY’s Times Square
1953: Severe Drought – Texas & Oklahoma Declared Major Disaster Areas
1953: West German Drought Close To Drying Up An Important Water Reservoir
1953 Multiple May Tornadoes Pummel Waco, TX – 115 Die
1953: May Tornadoes Roar Through Georgia & Alabama – 24 Dead
1953: 3rd Huge Dust Storm In 10 Days Blasts America’s Wheat Areas
1953: June Tornado Rampage Killed Hundreds In Massachusetts, Michigan, Ohio, Texas
1953: Drought Dries Up Rio Grande River, Missouri River Is Flooding Montana
1953: Heat Wave Blisters U.S. East of The Rockies
1953: Sweden Takes Steps To Stop Paratyphiod Epidemic
1954: 100 MPH Blizzard Winds Howl Across Nebraska
1954: Scientists Tell Congress That The Arctic Might Be Navigable By 1979
1954: Arctic Permafrost In Canada Melting – Natives Have To Be Moved
1954: Mainstream Media Reports That Past Was Much Warmer Than Current Temperatures
1954: Melting Himalayan Glacier Flooding – 200,000 Homeless
1954: North African Earthquake Followed By More Tremors – 1,340 Deaths In Algeria
1954: Longest Drought Grows To Four U.S. States
1954: Heat Wave In Illinois Registers 112 Degree Temperature – Highest Ever
1954: Dixie First Hit By Dust Storms Then Tornadoes
1954: Drought Turns To Floods In Texas
1954: Worst Floods of Century Devastate Areas of Nepal
1954: Hurricane Carol Stampedes Through New England – 49 Dead
1954: Hurricane Edna Blasts New England & Canada
1954: Hurricane Hazel Strikes Haiti, U.S. & Canada – At Least 1,000 Dead
1954: 8 Hurricanes Wreak Havoc On U.S. During 1954 – Worst Year On Record
1954: Record Heat Wave Brings Death, Destruction
1954: 18 Die In Airliner Crash Caused By Mexican Dust Storm
1954: “UK, Europe Have Worst Summer For Years”
1954: Radioactive Dust Storm Injures 23 Japanese Fishermen
1954: Climate Scientists Say Summers Getting Cooler & Wetter In Australia

Reply to  John in Oz
February 7, 2016 12:49 pm

Yeah, but we get that hypothetical 0.5 degrees for the low low price of poisoning the worlds oceans.
Who can pass that up?

February 7, 2016 1:05 pm

Publish or perish.

Reply to  jorgekafkazar
February 7, 2016 4:57 pm

In this case, it would be nice if they did both, jorgekafkazar ;o)

February 7, 2016 1:43 pm

If you really wan to exercise your ulcers, watch the CBC Network (Canadian Broadcasting on Communism Network) on February 18, 2016. Should get a few people’s juice flowing.

This Changes Everything
Thursday, February 18, 2016 at 12 PM on CBC-TV
Filmed over 211 shoot days in nine countries and five continents over four years, This Changes Everything is an epic attempt to re-imagine the vast challenge of climate change.
Inspired by Naomi Klein’s international non-fiction bestseller This Changes Everything, the film presents seven powerful portraits of communities on the front lines, from Montana’s Powder River Basin to the Alberta Tar Sands, from the coast of South
India to Beijing and beyond. Interwoven with these stories of struggle is Klein’s narration, connecting the carbon in the air with the economic system that put it there. Throughout the film, Klein builds to her most controversial and exciting idea: that we can seize the existential crisis of climate change to transform our failed economic system into something radically better.
I am “re-imagining” how history will judge these people … and where does all the money come from? George Soros et al?

February 7, 2016 1:46 pm

To have any effect at all they would have to add giga tons of bubble bath the the oceans at least. If enough is added, wave action alone would be enough to create the bubbles but the bubbles created will not last very long since they get destroyed very quickly by any form of wind and sea spray. If they are really serious about this they should start with a small pond and see how quickly the bubble bath kills the fish and what it does to algae formation. Right now there are laws against dumping bubble bath into the ocean. A better use of materials would be to paint land surfaces bright white. How much would their effort cost? What would be the effect of all the dead fish on the Earth’s albedo? The bubbles might also have an insulation effect and actual cause warming.

Gunga Din
February 7, 2016 1:55 pm

The surest to know if this plan is going be implemented would be to see if Al Gore has invested in bubble bath.

Pamela Gray
Reply to  Gunga Din
February 7, 2016 2:31 pm

Geo-engineering to reduce climate warming is likely an R&D department of a subsidiary of any number of companies whose sole purpose each is to be awarded grants to study bubble bath in a tub. And the likely supporters of this approach would be the Clintons and the Obamas. And their sole purpose is to garner votes.

February 7, 2016 2:22 pm

This must be Stupid Geo-Engineering Idea #343 by now. Why not just throw all our old junk, plastic stuff, polystyrene, and old bottles into the sea! This would reduce evaporation and reflect all that nasty heat out again! These ideas make as much sense as hitting your broken watch with a hammer in the hope that the sudden re-arrangement will make it start to work well again.

Reply to  ntesdorf
February 7, 2016 2:47 pm

As for that broken watch and hammer trick…it is all in the wrist.
Might work better to throw the watch into soapy sea water.
We are gonna have plenty.

Adrian O
February 7, 2016 3:35 pm

In 1975 there was a letter from climate scientists to President Nixon, suggesting that we cover the Arctic in soot, to stop man made global freezing…

Reply to  Adrian O
February 7, 2016 6:49 pm

That would work too…right up until it snowed next.

February 7, 2016 4:42 pm

But it’s not clear whether the scheme would be safe for marine life.
Actually, it is very clear indeed. It is absolutely not safe at all.
As it happens, back when I started in the chemical industry inn the early to mid 1960s, there was a global emergency initiative in progress to remove the vast majority of non-biodegradeable detergents from the World market because they were causing considerable pollution problems, huge build-ups of foam in streams and rivers and worst of all, lowering the surface tension of the World’s oceans, with widespread catastrophic results for the various flora and fauna therein.
Subsequent to that, the very small proportion of non-biogradeable detergents which for technical reasons could not be immediately superseded were licensed, strictly controlled and had to be recovered after use and destroyed.
Interestingly, this initiative attracted little or no attention from the mass media and was undertaken on a huge scale with no fanfare about “saving the World” or similar claptrap.
Compare and contrast with the CAGW situation…

February 7, 2016 5:08 pm

You know this chick had to be sitting in a bubble bath with a bottle of cheap wine when she thought this up !!

Reply to  Marcus
February 7, 2016 6:52 pm

And I think she was visiting Colorado at the time, man…if you know what I mean, and I think you do.

Smart Rock
February 7, 2016 6:42 pm

Before the beginning of the Pleistocene ice age, our ancestors were wild animals with intelligence comparable with what we see today in apes, i.e. quite smart compared with hedgehogs, rabbits or donkeys..
Then came the ice age. Severe environmental stress caused the death of the majorities of populations over and over again, This kind of situation where survival rates are very low accelerates the process of evolution by natural selection and it’s reasonable to assume that multiple glacial periods repeated the thinning of populations and the selection of survivors who had incrementally improved their ability to survive in the cold. The result was that a species evolved with the ability to survive glacial periods by: (1) using the skins of large furry animals to keep themselves warm (2) using shelter (initially caves) to stay warm and safe, (3) being able to make, use and control fire to keep warm, (4) being able to make weapons to kill large herbivores for food when edible fruits became scarce due to the cold and (5) developing social structures to act coherently in groups to use those weapons to hunt very large animals. Long story short – the evolution of a species with the intelligence and ability to use and control its physical environment is almost certainly a direct consequence of climate change over the Pleistocene.
If this paper gives us any insight into the current state of human intelligence, there’s no point in worrying about climates of the future. The next glacial period will kill us all off, and we will deserve it.

Reply to  Smart Rock
February 7, 2016 8:45 pm

Good post, but I doubt it. The grown-ups will be back in charge as necessary ….

February 7, 2016 8:33 pm

Look at all of you surfactant deniers!!! Pathetic!! Surfactants are REAL, man!

February 7, 2016 8:41 pm

What about a few trillion tons of calcium hydroxide to save us from ocean acidification ….
……. anyone want to help fund my start-up ? There’s plenty more fish in the sea, as they say.

February 7, 2016 8:54 pm

Where do they find these idiots? These clowns are the Dr. Frankensteins of today.

John of Cloverdale WA Australia
February 7, 2016 9:51 pm

Off the subject somewhat, but a fun piece by Tim Blair (journalist and Sydney Telegraph blogger:
“Which leads us to the CSIRO, and a stunning strategic error by the national science agency’s climate researchers. During the past decade, researchers at the CSIRO – along with global warming alarmists everywhere – have been telling us that the “science is settled” when it comes to climate change.
In other words, they’ve delivered their verdict. Bad move.
CSIRO chief Larry Marshall has recently been examining his organisation for areas where he might achieve some $110 million in budget cuts. Inevitably, his gaze fell upon the climate change crowd – the guys who, by their own admission, have already finished their jobs. Last week Marshall sent this memo to CSIRO staff:
“CSIRO pioneered climate research, the same way we saved the cotton and wool industries for our nation. But we cannot rest on our laurels as that is the path to mediocrity. Our climate models are among the best in the world and our measurements honed those models to prove global climate change. That question has been answered.”
Reasonably enough, with that question answered, Marshall is now taking steps to throw most of the CSIRO’s climate researchers out on the street like common circus midgets. More than 300 climate scientists are set to be dismissed over the next couple of years. “Climate will be all gone, basically,” one senior scientist told Fairfax as news of the cuts emerged.
Naturally, this caused an immediate reversal of opinion among Australia’s cashed-up climate change community. Suddenly the science wasn’t settled at all. In fact, the science was almost completely unknown! ” (Paywall for the rest of the article).

David Cage
February 8, 2016 12:06 am

Strange how they could consider this while still fining a manufacturer of detergents really heavily for spillage into the river and the wildlife damage it is claimed it did.

February 8, 2016 3:38 am

The idiocy of such an idea is beyond me. The idea of adding soap to the oceans …. unbelievable …. and the complete impracticality of such a proposal. Human stupidity seems to know no bounds.

February 8, 2016 5:53 am

Ban black tarmac. Will reduce UHI effects. Green is a lovely colour….or leave it concrete like around California.
Make roofs white as well while you’re at it.

Reply to  Wu
February 8, 2016 1:30 pm

Mirrored parking lots, roads and rooftops?

February 8, 2016 6:27 am

I’m voting for insuring all plastic that ends up as trash in the ocean be white. That way ocean plastic trash will augment the bubbles, and we can save money by not having to worry about or collect that trash.

j ferguson
February 8, 2016 8:36 am

These folks must have a real problem with birds. If they can’t kill them with wind-turbines, they’ll drown them in the sea. Dad told us that detergent poured onto the surface of a pond will cause the ducks to no longer float. he didn’t believe it either and he and some friends tried it. The got quite beat up rescuing the ducks who didn’t launch quickly enough.

February 8, 2016 9:57 am

This idea was dreamed up by Big Shipping. A more slippery ocean would reduce fuel costs.

February 8, 2016 1:28 pm

When I was a starving graduate student in a roach-infested rental, I experimented on my ‘roommates’. They can survive a microwave oven, live for days without a head, for a month trapped in a jar filled with acid fumes, but they were killed almost *instantly* by soapy water.
I can just imagine the effect of pouring surfactants into the ocean surface would have on zooplankton – the lowest level of ‘eaters’ on the ocean food chain.

February 8, 2016 4:16 pm

Putting millions ot tons of detergents into the oceans is supposed to be a good idea- but one indian tribe putting 100 tons of iron sulphate into one ocean eddy led to multiple swat team raids by Environment Canada. These are the Crazy Years.

February 12, 2016 10:26 pm

The more I think about it, the more I see it as a joke/provocation. It’s just waaaaaay too much crazy (not the normal kind of crazy).
My hypotheses so far:
1. Researcher was bored, just wanted to have fun.
2. Social experiment: researcher wanted to know how much people would reproduce a crazy (and crazier) idea.
3. Researcher lost a bet.
But there is still a climate explanation:
4. Global warming causes neural meltdown (global climate warming causes everything).
I wonder what’s next. Global war to avoid climate change?

%d bloggers like this:
Verified by MonsterInsights